To: | Ste. Michelle Wine Estates Ltd. (TrademarkGroup@altria.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88458287 - KELVIN - N/A |
Sent: | September 03, 2019 12:46:15 PM |
Sent As: | ecom104@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 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88458287
Mark: KELVIN
|
|
Correspondence Address: |
|
Applicant: Ste. Michelle Wine Estates Ltd.
|
|
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: September 03, 2019
The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney. Applicant must respond timely and completely to the issues below. 15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(a), 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.
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.
SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
In the present case, the applicant seeks registration of KELVIN in standard character form/in stylized form for “Alcoholic Beverages, Except Beers” in Class 33.
The cited registered mark is KELVIN in standard character form for, inter alia, “non-alcoholic frozen and semi-frozen cocktail bases; concentrates and mixes used in the preparation of making frozen and semi-frozen non-alcoholic slush frozen flavored beverages” in 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 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. 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 and differences in the marks.”); TMEP §1207.01.
Comparison of the Marks
In the present case, applicant’s mark is KELVIN in standard character form and registrant’s mark is KELVIN in standard character form. These marks are identical in appearance, sound, and meaning, “and have the potential to be used . . . in exactly the same manner.” In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 116 USPQ2d 1406, 1411 (TTAB 2015), aff’d, 866 F.3d 1315, 123 USPQ2d 1744 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Additionally, because they are identical, these marks are likely to engender the same connotation and overall commercial impression when considered in connection with applicant’s and registrant’s respective goods. Id.
Therefore, the marks are confusingly similar.
Relatedness of the Goods
In this case, applicant’s mark is KELVIN in standard character form/in stylized form for “Alcoholic Beverages, Except Beers” in Class 33.
The cited registered mark is KELVIN in standard character form for, inter alia, “non-alcoholic frozen and semi-frozen cocktail bases; concentrates and mixes used in the preparation of making frozen and semi-frozen non-alcoholic slush frozen flavored beverages” in Class 32.
Here, the respective goods are closely related because they travel through similar channels of trade to the same class of consumer. The examining attorney has attached Internet website evidence demonstrating that alcoholic beverages and non-alcoholic frozen and semi-frozen cocktail concentrates and mixes are commonly provided together and commonly originate from the same source. The attached Internet evidence from Merrittestatewinery.com, Pirtlewinery.com, Panamacitybeachwinery.com, and Prairieberry.com, establishes that the same entity commonly produces and provides the relevant goods and markets the goods under the same mark and that the relevant goods are sold or provided through the same trade channels and used by the same classes of consumers in the same fields of use. Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods are considered related for likelihood of confusion purposes. See, e.g., In re Davey Prods. Pty Ltd., 92 USPQ2d 1198, 1202-04 (TTAB 2009); In re Toshiba Med. Sys. Corp., 91 USPQ2d 1266, 1268-69, 1271-72 (TTAB 2009). See attached evidence from:
· http://www.merrittestatewinery.com/wines;
· http://www.merrittestatewinery.com/catalog/p-100089/sangria-wine-slush-mix-750-ml;
· http://www.pirtlewinery.com/Shop;
· http://www.pirtlewinery.com/product/Wine-Slushie-Mix;
· http://panamacitybeachwinery.com/shop?olsPage=t%2F100-fruit-wine-single-fruit;
· http://panamacitybeachwinery.com/shop?olsPage=products%2Fpeach-smoothie-mix;
· http://www.prairieberry.com/wines/; and
· http://www.prairieberry.com/product/frost-bite-wine-freeze/.
Thus, upon encountering KELVIN for alcoholic beverages excluding beer, and KELVIN for non-alcoholic frozen and semi-frozen cocktail concentrates and mixes, consumers are likely to be confused and mistakenly believe that the respective goods emanate from a common source. As such, registration must be refused under Trademark Act Section 2(d).
QUESTIONS
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. 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
/Andrew Crowder-Schaefer/
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 104
(571) 272-0087
andrew.crowderschaefer@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE