To: | Stevens, Scott A. (lbjtaxlaw@gmail.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88462439 - BRICK OVEN PIZZA COMPANY - N/A |
Sent: | September 05, 2019 12:06:25 PM |
Sent As: | ecom112@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 Attachment - 26 Attachment - 27 Attachment - 28 Attachment - 29 Attachment - 30 Attachment - 31 Attachment - 32 Attachment - 33 Attachment - 34 Attachment - 35 Attachment - 36 Attachment - 37 Attachment - 38 Attachment - 39 Attachment - 40 Attachment - 41 Attachment - 42 Attachment - 43 Attachment - 44 Attachment - 45 Attachment - 46 Attachment - 47 Attachment - 48 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88462439
Mark: BRICK OVEN PIZZA COMPANY
|
|
Correspondence Address:
|
|
Applicant: Stevens, Scott A.
|
|
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 05, 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.
SECTION 2(d) 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. 2312794, 2452520, 3224694, 3471215, 4684677, 5260158. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. 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 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.
Here, applicant’s applied-for mark is “BRICK OVEN PIZZA COMPANY” for “restaurant services” in Class 43. Registrants’ marks are “GOODFELLA'S BRICK OVEN PIZZA,” “ZA'S BRICK OVEN PIZZA,” “MAMMA'S BRICK OVEN PIZZA,” “REMO'S BRICK OVEN PIZZA COMPANY,” “RAMUNTO'S BRICK OVEN PIZZA,” “BURATTINO BRICK OVEN PIZZA,” for restaurant services in Class 43.
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).
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).
Here, applicant’s mark is “BRICK OVEN PIZZA COMPANY” in standard characters. Registrants’ marks are “GOODFELLA'S BRICK OVEN PIZZA,” “ZA'S BRICK OVEN PIZZA,” “MAMMA'S BRICK OVEN PIZZA,” “REMO'S BRICK OVEN PIZZA COMPANY,” “RAMUNTO'S BRICK OVEN PIZZA,” “BURATTINO BRICK OVEN PIZZA.” 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.
Thus, the marks are similar for likelihood of confusion purposes.
RELATEDNESS OF THE SERVICES
As noted above, applicant’s mark is for “restaurant services” in Class 43, and the registrants’ marks are for varying restaurant services in Class 43.
Registration Nos. 2312794, 2452520, 4684677, 3224694
When analyzing an applicant’s and registrant’s services for similarity and relatedness, that determination is based on the description of the services in the application and registration at issue, not on extrinsic evidence of actual use. See Stone Lion Capital Partners, LP v. Lion Capital LLP, 746 F.3d 1317, 1323, 110 USPQ2d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Octocom Sys. Inc. v. Hous. Computers Servs. Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 942, 16 USPQ2d 1783, 1787 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
In this case, the services in the application and registrations are identical. Therefore, it is presumed that the channels of trade and class of purchasers are the same for these services. See Cai v. Diamond Hong, Inc., __ F.3d __, 27 USPQ2d 1797, 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s services are related.
Registration Nos. 3471215, 5260158
In this case, the application uses broad wording to describe restaurant services in Class 43, which presumably encompasses all services of the type described, including registrants’ more narrow “Restaurant services featuring American food, Italian food and pizza pies made to order, for home and remote location delivery, for consumption within the restaurant, and by carry-out” and “Italian restaurant services featuring the use of a brick oven for its pizzas” in Class 43. 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 services 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 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 services are related.
Thus, the applicant’s and registrants’ services are related for likelihood of confusion purposes.
Therefore, applicant’s mark is refused under Section 2(d) for likelihood of confusion purposes because the marks are similar and the services are related.
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(e)(1) REFUSAL - MERELY DESCRIPTIVE
Here, applicant’s mark is “BRICK OVEN PIZZA COMPANY” for “restaurant services” in Class 43. Generally, a mark that consists of the generic name of a food or dish that is the specialty of the house or a principal attraction of the restaurant has been held merely descriptive of restaurant services. See In re Fr. Croissant, Ltd., 1 USPQ2d 1238, 1239 (TTAB 1986) (holding LE CROISSANT SHOP merely descriptive of restaurant services providing croissants); In re Le Sorbet, Inc., 228 USPQ 27, 28 (TTAB 1985) (holding LE SORBET descriptive of restaurant and carryout shops which serve fruit ices); cf. TMEP §1209.03(r). In this instance, “BRICK OVEN PIZZA” is “cooked in a large brick oven made from mortar [sic] and stone. . . . Brick oven pizza restaurants are popular around the world. These pizza parlors specialize in pizzas made in brick and mortar [sic] ovens.” See attached evidence from WiseGEEK, available at http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-brick-oven-pizza.htm. As indicated on applicant’s website, “specialty pizzas” have their own section of the menu, and appear to be a principal attraction of the restaurant. See attached evidence from applicant’s website, available at http://www.brickovenpizzacompany.com/ and http://www.brickovenpizzacompany.com/Menu/Specialty-Pizzas/. Thus, “BRICK OVEN PIZZA” merely describes the food or dish that is a specialty or principal attraction of applicant’s restaurant services.
Further, the wording “BRICK OVEN PIZZA” appears to be a genre of restaurant. See attached evidence from CBS, available at http://washington.cbslocal.com/top-lists/best-brick-oven-pizzas-in-dc/, which discusses five pizza restaurants in Washington D.C. which specialize in brick oven pizza, and from Yelp, available at http://www.yelp.com/search?find_desc=brick+oven+pizza+restaurants&find_loc=Alexandria%2C+VA, which lists the best brick oven pizza restaurants in Alexandria, VA; see also, third party uses of the wording “BRICK OVEN PIZZA” to describe their type of restaurant and/or food specialty. A term may be generic for restaurant services if the term identifies a central focus or key aspect of the services, such as a specialty dish, as well as where the evidence shows that a class of restaurants have the same central focus or key aspect. See In re Cordua Rests., Inc., 823 F.3d 594, 604, 118 USPQ2d 1632, 1638 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding CHURRASCOS generic for a class of restaurants that serve churrascos (grilled meat)); Hunt Masters, Inc. v. Landry's Seafood Rest., Inc., 240 F.3d 251, 254, 57 USPQ2d 1884, 1885-86 (4th Cir. 2001) (holding CRAB HOUSE generic for a class of restaurants that serve crabs); TMEP §1209.03(v).
As such, applicant’s mark “BRICK OVEN PIZZA COMPANY” is refused under Section 2(e)(1) because it is merely descriptive of applicant’s services.
Response guidelines. For this application to proceed, applicant must explicitly address each refusal and/or requirement in this Office action. For a refusal, applicant may provide written arguments and evidence against the refusal, and may have other response options if specified above. For a requirement, applicant should set forth the changes or statements. Please see “Responding to Office Actions” and the informational video “Response to Office Action” for more information and tips on responding.
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
Tyler Seling
/Tyler M. Seling/
Tyler M. Seling, Esq.
Examining Attorney
Law Office 112
(571) 272-0272
Tyler.Seling@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE