To: | Equine Elixirs, Inc. (info@equineelixirs.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88447723 - TIDBITS - N/A |
Sent: | August 21, 2019 03:36:15 PM |
Sent As: | ecom105@uspto.gov |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88447723
Mark: TIDBITS
|
|
Correspondence Address:
|
|
Applicant: Equine Elixirs, Inc.
|
|
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: August 21, 2019
The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney. Applicant must respond timely and completely to the issue(s) below. 15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(a), 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.
Summary of Issues:
REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 3060601 and 3981604. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. (Please see the attached registrations.)
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.
In this case, the applied-for mark is TIDBITS and design for “Edible pet treats.” The registered marks are as follows:
U.S. Registration No. 3060601 - TEMPTING TIDBITS for “edible cat treats
U.S. Registration No. 3981604 - TOPDOG TIDBITS for “Pet treats”
Comparison of Marks
The marks convey similar commercial impressions in that they share the wording TIDBITS. The addition of the design elements to the applied-for mark does not avoid confusion because, 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 and/or services. 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)).
Moreover, the addition of TEMPTING and TOPDOG to the registered marks does not avoid confusion, as applicant has merely deleted matter from already-registered marks. 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.
Comparison of Goods
Applicant’s goods are “edible pet treats.” Such wording encompasses all types of edible pet treats, including the more specific type identified in U.S. Registration No. 3060601 - edible cat treats. Likewise, U.S. Registration No. 3981604 is used for “Pet treats.” This encompasses all types of pet treats, including “edible” pet treats, as specified in the application.
Because the goods are similar and encompassing in, thus, potentially identical, they are likely to be encountered by the same class of potential consumers. Consumers who encounter similar marks for identical, similar or related goods are likely to be confused as to their source. Thus, registration is refused pursuant to Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.
Although the examining attorney has refused registration, the applicant may present arguments in support of registration.
In addition, the applicant must also respond to the following requirement(s):
COLOR CLAIM AND MARK DESCRIPTION
If white is a feature of the mark, the following are suggested:
Color claim: The colors white, black and coral are claimed as a feature of the mark.
Mark description: The mark consists of the stylized word “Tidbits” in black, with white areas in the letters “db”, with the letters “d” and “b” represented by a black and white half cheek snaffle bit and the letters i dotted with coral colored circles.
If white is not a feature of the mark, the following mark description is suggested”
Mark description: The mark consists of the stylized word “Tidbits” in black, with the letters “d” and “b” represented by a black half cheek snaffle bit and the letters “i” dotted with coral colored circles. The color white is not a feature of the mark, and the white areas in the drawing represent the transparent areas in the mark.
37 C.F.R. §2.52(b)(1); TMEP §807.07(a)(i), (a)(ii).
UNNECESSARY DISCLAIMER
The application includes a disclaimer of the following matter in the applied-for mark: “tidbits.” An applicant may voluntarily disclaim matter in a mark regardless of whether the matter is registrable. TMEP §1213.01(c); see 15 U.S.C. §1056(a). However, a disclaimer of this matter is not required.
Therefore, applicant may request to withdraw this disclaimer from the application. If applicant does not expressly request its withdrawal, the disclaimer will remain in the application.
QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS OFFICE ACTION
Please call or email the assigned trademark examining attorney with questions about this Office action. Although the trademark examining attorney cannot provide legal advice or statements about applicant’s rights, the trademark examining attorney can provide applicant with additional explanation about the refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) in this Office action. See TMEP §§705.02, 709.06. Although the USPTO does not accept emails as responses to Office actions, emails can be used for informal communications and will be included in the application record. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(c), 2.191; TMEP §§304.01-.02, 709.04-.05.
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
/Melissa Vallillo/
Trademark Examining Attorney
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
Law Office 105
(571) 272-5891
melissa.vallillo@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE