| To: | Grunewald, Aryeh Z. (lmandel@gmplaw.net) |
| Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88445066 - SWEETS - 2343-20 |
| Sent: | August 22, 2019 07:41:34 AM |
| Sent As: | ecom108@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 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
|
U.S. Application Serial No. 88445066
Mark: SWEETS
|
|
|
Correspondence Address:
|
|
|
Applicant: Grunewald, Aryeh Z.
|
|
|
Reference/Docket No. 2343-20
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.
SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL—LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
Applicant’s mark is SWEETS for “beef jerky; chocolate milk; potato chips” in International Class 29, “honey; candies made of fruit jelly; gummies; lollipops; marshmallow treats; treats made with cereal; chocolates; corn chips” in International Class 30, and “drinks, namely, smoothies, fruit drinks; flavored water, distilled water, spring water” in International Class 32. The registrants marks are:
BOMBAY SWEETS in standard characters for, in relevant part, “potato-based snack foods” in International Class 29.
SWEETS BY SELINA in standard characters for, in relevant portion, chocolate in International Class 30.
KWALITY SWEETS & RESTAURAT for, in relevant portion, “Prepared foods for take-out, namely, corn snacks” in International Class 30, and “mineral and aerated water”, fruit juices, and “non-alcoholic fruit cordials” in International Class 32.
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 and/or services 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
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).
When comparing marks, “[t]he proper test is not a side-by-side comparison of the marks, but instead whether the marks are sufficiently similar in terms of their commercial impression such that [consumers] who encounter the marks would be likely to assume a connection between the parties.” Cai v. Diamond Hong, Inc., __ F.3d __, 127 USPQ2d 1797, 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1368, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); TMEP §1207.01(b). The proper focus is on the recollection of the average purchaser, who retains a general rather than specific impression of trademarks. In re Inn at St. John’s, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1742, 1746 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re St. Helena Hosp., 774 F.3d 747, 750-51, 113 USPQ2d 1082, 1085 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Geigy Chem. Corp. v. Atlas Chem. Indus., Inc., 438 F.2d 1005, 1007, 169 USPQ 39, 40 (CCPA 1971)); TMEP §1207.01(b).
In the case of U.S. Registration No. 5337895, the marks are similar as the applied-for mark is entirely incorporated within the registered mark. Incorporating the entirety of one mark within another does not obviate the similarity between the compared marks, as in the present case, nor does it overcome a likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d). See Wella Corp. v. Cal. Concept Corp., 558 F.2d 1019, 1022, 194 USPQ 419, 422 (C.C.P.A. 1977) (finding CALIFORNIA CONCEPT and surfer design and CONCEPT confusingly similar); Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Jos. E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., 526 F.2d 556, 557, 188 USPQ 105, 106 (C.C.P.A. 1975) (finding BENGAL LANCER and design and BENGAL confusingly similar); In re Integrated Embedded, 120 USPQ2d 1504, 1513 (TTAB 2016) (finding BARR GROUP and BARR confusingly similar); In re Mr. Recipe, LLC, 118 USPQ2d 1084, 1090 (TTAB 2016) (finding JAWS DEVOUR YOUR HUNGER and JAWS confusingly similar); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iii). In the present case, the marks are identical in part.
In the case of U.S. Registration No. 4662829, the marks are similar as the applied-for mark merely deletes the term “BOMBAY” from the registered mark. Although applicant’s mark does not contain the entirety of the registered mark, applicant’s mark is likely to appear to prospective purchasers as a shortened form of registrant’s mark. See In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 1348, 94 USPQ2d 1257, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting United States Shoe Corp., 229 USPQ 707, 709 (TTAB 1985)). Thus, merely omitting some of the wording from a registered mark may not overcome a likelihood of confusion. See In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 94 USPQ2d 1257; In re Optica Int’l, 196 USPQ 775, 778 (TTAB 1977); TMEP §1207.01(b)(ii)-(iii). In this case, applicant’s mark does not create a distinct commercial impression from the registered mark because it contains some of the wording in the registered mark and does not add any wording that would distinguish it from that mark.
Finally, in the case of U.S. Registration No. 4780803, the applied-for mark merely deletes the “BY SELINA” portion of the registered mark. Although applicant’s mark does not contain the entirety of the registered mark, applicant’s mark is likely to appear to prospective purchasers as a shortened form of registrant’s mark. See In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 1348, 94 USPQ2d 1257, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting United States Shoe Corp., 229 USPQ 707, 709 (TTAB 1985)). Thus, merely omitting some of the wording from a registered mark may not overcome a likelihood of confusion. See In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 94 USPQ2d 1257; In re Optica Int’l, 196 USPQ 775, 778 (TTAB 1977); TMEP §1207.01(b)(ii)-(iii). In this case, applicant’s mark does not create a distinct commercial impression from the registered mark because it contains some of the wording in the registered mark and does not add any wording that would distinguish it from that mark. Further, as the wording which is removed “BY SELINA” is of the type which is typically attached to a product line, it is a common shortening of a mark prospective purchasers encounter frequently.
As a result, the marks are similar for likelihood of confusion purposes.
Relatedness of the Goods
In the case of U.S. Registration No. 4780803, the Determining likelihood of confusion is based on the description of the goods and/or services stated in the application and registration at issue, not on extrinsic evidence of actual use. See In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1307, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1052 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1325, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1749 (Fed. Cir. 2017)).
In this case, the application uses broad wording to describe “chocolates”, which presumably encompasses all goods of the type described, including the registrant’s more narrow “chocolate” and “chocolate bars”. 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)).
Additionally, the goods and/or services 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 and/or services are related.
Similarly, in the case of U.S. Registration No. 4662829, the registration uses broad wording to describe “potato-based snack foods” which presumably includes all goods of the type described, including Applicant’s more narrow “potato chips”. As a result, Applicant’s and Registrant’s goods are legally identical.
Finally, in the case of U.S. Registration No. 5337895, the registration uses broad wording to describe “confectionery, namely chocolate confectioneries”, and “mineral and aerated water” and which presumably includes all goods of the type described including Applicant’s more narrow “chocolates”, “distilled water”, and “spring water”. In addition, the Application uses broad wording to describe “fruit drinks” which presumably includes all goods of the type, including Registrant’s more narrow fruit juices and nectars and non-alcoholic fruit cordials. As a result, Applicant’s and Registrant’s goods are legally identical.
Conclusion
Where the goods and/or services of an applicant and registrant are identical or legally identical, the degree of similarity between the marks required to support a finding that confusion is likely declines. See Cai v. Diamond Hong, Inc., __ F.3d __, 127 USPQ2d 1797, 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1363, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); TMEP §1207.01(b).
As Applicant’s and the registrants’ marks are similar and their goods legally identical, registration of the applied-for mark must be refused under Trademark Act Section 2(d).
Applicant should note the following related advisory.
PRIOR PENDING APPLICATION ADVISORY
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 marks in the referenced applications. 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.
Applicant should note the following additional grounds for refusal.
SECTION 2(e)(1) REFUSAL - MERELY DESCRIPTIVE
The attached definitions from the Merriam-Webster dictionary as well as the Free Dictionary establishes that the term “SWEETS” means “something that is sweets to the taste: such as a food having a high sugar content” and can refer specifically to “foods, such as candy, pastries, puddings, or preserves, that are high in sugar content.”
The attached evidence from Walmart.com establishes that this term is applied to a wide variety of goods having this feature. The attached evidence from LiveStrong.com establishes that this term is used to describe a wide variety of goods including candies and sugary beverages. Applicant has identified their goods in the application as including such beverages, such as smoothies, fruit drinks, and chocolate milk, as well as such sweet foods as candies made of fruit jelly, gummies, lollipops, marshmallow treats, treats made with cereal, and chocolates.
As a result, the applied-for mark merely describes this feature of Applicant’s goods: they are sweet in taste.
Applicant should note the following related requirement.
REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
(1) Fact sheets, instruction manuals, brochures, advertisements and pertinent screenshots of applicant’s website as it relates to the goods and/or services in the application, including any materials using the terms in the applied-for mark. Merely stating that information about the goods and/or services is available on applicant’s website is insufficient to make the information of record.;
(2) If these materials are unavailable, applicant should submit similar documentation for goods and services of the same type, explaining how its own product or services will differ. If the goods and/or services feature new technology and information regarding competing goods and/or services is not available, applicant must provide a detailed factual description of the goods and/or services. Factual information about the goods must make clear how they operate, salient features, and prospective customers and channels of trade. For services, the factual information must make clear what the services are and how they are rendered, salient features, and prospective customers and channels of trade. Conclusory statements will not satisfy this requirement.; and
(3) Applicant must respond to the following questions:
1. Do Applicant’s goods contain sugar or other sweeteners?
2. Are Applicant’s goods sweetened?
3. Do Applicant’s goods contain sweet potatoes?
See 37 C.F.R. §2.61(b); TMEP §§814, 1402.01(e).
Failure to comply with a request for information is grounds for refusing registration. In re Harley, 119 USPQ2d 1755, 1757-58 (TTAB 2016); TMEP §814.
Applicant should note the following additional requirement.
IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS AMENDMENT REQUIRED
The entry “marshmallow treats” is indefinite and must be clarified to specify the nature of these goods: marshmallows or marshmallow based desserts, in which case the nature of these desserts must be identified, e.g., marshmallow squares.
The entry “treats made with cereal” is indefinite and must be clarified to specify the common commercial name of these treats, e.g. cereal bars, or more clearly identify the nature of these goods, e.g. treats made with cereal and marshmallow, namely, marshmallow squares.
The wording “distilled water” must specify that this entry describes distilled drinking water to remain properly classified in International Class 32 rather than in International Class 1.
In general, commas should be used in an identification (1) to separate a series of related items identified within a particular category of goods or services, (2) before and after “namely,” and (3) between each item in a list of goods or services following “namely” (e.g., personal care products, namely, body lotion, bar soap, shampoo). Id. Semicolons generally should be used to separate a series of distinct categories of goods or services within an international class (e.g., personal care products, namely, body lotion; deodorizers for pets; glass cleaners). Id.
Applicant may substitute the following wording, if accurate: (suggestions in bold):
Class 1: distilled water
Class 5: gummy vitamins
Class 29: to remain as is
Class 30: Honey; candies made of fruit jelly; gummy candies; lollipops; marshmallows; marshmallow squares; cereal bars; chocolates; corn chips
Class 32: Drinks, namely, smoothies, fruit drinks; flavored water; distilled drinking water; spring water
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.
Applicant should note the following related requirements.
MULTIPLE-CLASS APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS
(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 and/or services that are classified in at least five classes; however, applicant submitted a fee(s) sufficient for only three classes. 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.
Applicant should note the following additional requirements.
ATTORNEY INFORMATION AND ATTESTATION REQUIRED
RESPONSE GUIDELINES
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
Riso, Mark
/Mark Riso/
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 108
(571)272-0167
Mark.Riso@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE
