Offc Action Outgoing

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application

 

 

 

NONFINAL OFFICE ACTION

 

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:  March 12, 2020

 

The March 3, 2020 response has been reviewed by the assigned examining attorney.

 

Summary of Issues

 

Applicant must respond timely and completely to the issues below:

 

1.      Trademark Act Section 2(d) - Likelihood of Confusion Refusal to Register

2.      Proposed Identification Not Accepted – Amendment Required

 

15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(a), 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.

 

1.         Trademark Act Section 2(d) – Likelihood of Confusion Refusal to Register

 

The refusal to register the applied-for mark because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 4671362 is continued and maintained.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  A copy of the cited registration was provided with the September 4, 2019 office action.

 

The registered mark is SUPRABIOTICS for “nutritional supplements, namely, probiotic compositions.”  The applied-for mark is SUPERBIOTICS for “nutritional supplements in the form of fruit and vegetable juice containing probiotics.”[1]

 

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).  Any evidence of record related to those factors need be considered; however, “not all of the DuPont factors are relevant or of similar weight in every case.”  In re Guild Mortg. Co., 912 F.3d 1376, 1379, 129 USPQ2d 1160, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting In re Dixie Rests., Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 1406, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533 (Fed. Cir. 1997)).

 

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. 

 

Comparison 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)), aff’d per curiam, 777 F. App’x 516, 2019 BL 343921 (Fed. Cir. 2019); 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).

 

The first part of each mark is the similar SUPER and SUPRA. Consumers are generally more inclined to focus on the first word, prefix, or syllable in any trademark or service mark.  See Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 1372, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1692 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (finding similarity between VEUVE ROYALE and two VEUVE CLICQUOT marks in part because “VEUVE . . . remains a ‘prominent feature’ as the first word in the mark and the first word to appear on the label”); Century 21 Real Estate Corp. v. Century Life of Am., 970 F.2d 874, 876, 23 USPQ2d 1698, 1700 (Fed Cir. 1992) (finding similarity between CENTURY 21 and CENTURY LIFE OF AMERICA in part because “consumers must first notice th[e] identical lead word”); see also In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1303, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1049 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (finding “the identity of the marks’ two initial words is particularly significant because consumers typically notice those words first”).

 

SUPRA in the registered mark means “above; over; on top of” and “greater than; transcending” and SUPER in the applied-for mark is defined as “above; over; upon: superimpose” and “superior, as in size, quality, degree, or ability.” See definitions attached to the September 4, 2019 office action.

 

Applicant argues that SUPRA means “far beyond” and “novel” in the registered mark, but has failed to make any evidence of record to support this definition.  Additionally, the meaning of marks is determined based on the marks themselves and not using extrinsic evidence. In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1207 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 1993). “Registrability is determined based on the description in the application, and restrictions on how the mark is used will not be inferred.” Id.

 

Applicant also claims that registrant’s use lacks pluralization. The mark in the registration is SUPRABIOTICS, which is plural. Evidence of extrinsic use cannot alter this. Id.

 

In addition to starting with the similar SUPER AND SUPRA, the marks also end with the identical BIOTICS. Marks may be confusingly similar in appearance where similar terms or phrases or similar parts of terms or phrases appear in the compared marks and create a similar overall commercial impression.  See Crocker Nat’l Bank v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 228 USPQ 689, 690-91 (TTAB 1986), aff’d sub nom. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 811 F.2d 1490, 1495, 1 USPQ2d 1813, 1817 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (finding COMMCASH and COMMUNICASH confusingly similar); In re Corning Glass Works, 229 USPQ 65, 66 (TTAB 1985) (finding CONFIRM and CONFIRMCELLS confusingly similar); In re Pellerin Milnor Corp., 221 USPQ 558, 560 (TTAB 1983) (finding MILTRON and MILLTRONICS confusingly similar); TMEP §1207.01(b)(ii)-(iii).

 

Identical Goods

 

The goods and/or services are compared to determine whether they are similar, commercially related, or travel in the same trade channels.  See Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1369-71, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1722-23 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Herbko Int’l, Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc., 308 F.3d 1156, 1165, 64 USPQ2d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2002); TMEP §§1207.01, 1207.01(a)(vi).

 

Broad wording in an application or registration is presumed to encompass all goods and services of the type identified, including more specific wording in the other. 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). In this case, the registration uses broad wording to describe the goods as probiotic nutritional supplements without limitation as to the form of the supplements.  This wording is presumed to encompass the more specifically described nutritional supplements forms that also contain probiotics in the application. 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)).

 

Determining likelihood of confusion is based on the description of the goods and 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)).  

 

Evidentiary Objections

 

Exhibit 1: This screenshot of a webpage does not specify the date it was downloaded or accessed, which is required for internet evidence to be considered.  See In re I-Coat Co., LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1730, 1733 (TTAB 2018); TBMP §1208.03; see TMEP §710.01(b).

 

Exhibit 4: Applicant has submitted a list of registrations, which is not sufficient to make such registrations part of the record.  See In re Peace Love World Live, LLC, 127 USPQ2d 1400, 1405 n.17 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re 1st USA Realty Prof’ls, 84 USPQ2d 1581, 1583 (TTAB 2007); In re Duofold Inc., 184 USPQ 638, 640 (TTAB 1974)); TBMP §1208.02; TMEP §710.03. To make  registrations part of the record, an applicant must submit copies of the registrations, or the complete electronic equivalent from the USPTO’s automated systems, prior to appeal.  In re Star Belly Stitcher, Inc., 107 USPQ2d 2059, 2064 (TTAB 2013); TBMP §1208.02; TMEP §710.03.  Accordingly, these registrations will not be considered.

 

Conclusion

 

Given the similarity of the marks and the relatedness of the goods, consumers are likely to confuse the source of the goods  set forth in the application and the registration.  Accordingly, registration of the applied-for mark is refused under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.

 

Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.

 

If applicant responds to the refusal, applicant must also respond to the requirement set forth below.

 

2.         Proposed Identification Not Accepted - Amendment Required

 

The proposed amendment to the identification is not acceptable because it exceeds the scope of the identification in the application.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.32(a)(6), 2.71(a); TMEP §§805, 1402.06 et seq., 1402.07.  Applicant’s goods and/or services may be clarified or limited, but may not be expanded beyond those originally itemized in the application or as acceptably amended.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06.  Therefore, the original identification in the application, and any previously accepted amendments, remain operative for purposes of future amendment.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.07(d).

 

In this case, the application originally identified the goods as follows:  “Nutritional supplements in the form of fruit and vegetable juice containing probiotics; Beverages containing probiotic-fortified fruit and vegetable juice for use as a nutritional supplement.”

 

However, the proposed amendment identifies the following goods:  “nutritional supplements in the form of yogurt, smoothies, fruit juices, and vegetable juices containing probiotic formulations, sold and marketed exclusively to Red Mango restaurant customers.” 

 

The addition of “yogurt” exceeds the scope of the original as it is not a type of fruit or vegetable juice or beverage.

 

The proposed amended identification includes the wording “Red Mango,” which is a registered mark owned by applicant. See attached U.S. Registration No. 3506567. An applicant should not use its own registered in an identification of goods and/or services.  See TMEP §1402.09.  Identifications of goods and/or services should generally be comprised of generic everyday wording for the goods and/or services, and exclude proprietary or potentially-proprietary wording.  See TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.09.

 

Sample Amended Identification

 

A sample amended identification is set forth below, which applicant may adopt, if accurate to describe applicant’s goods and/or services.  Wording in italic type represents items in the identification that require clarification.  Bold italic type indicates changes to applicant’s original identification.  Strikethrough marking indicates wording that must be deleted.  Wording in [brackets] following a fill in the blank provides guidance and examples of acceptable amendments.  For example, if the original identification is “clothing,” and the suggestion is “clothing, namely, ____ [specify items in this class, e.g., shirts, pants and coats]”, applicant may amend the identification to “clothing, namely, shirts, pants and coats” in the response to the office action. 

 

International Class 5: nutritional supplements in the form of yogurt, smoothies, fruit juices, and vegetable juices containing probiotic formulations, sold and marketed exclusively to Red Mango restaurant customers

 

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 may amend the identification to clarify or limit the goods and/or services, but not to broaden or expand the goods and/or services beyond those in the original application or as acceptably amended.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06.  Generally, any deleted goods and/or services may not later be reinserted.  See TMEP §1402.07(e).

 

 

Response Information

 

How to respond.  Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action.    

 

Applicant may call or email the assigned trademark examining attorney with questions about this Office action. Although an examining attorney cannot provide legal advice, the examining attorney can provide additional explanation about the refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) in this Office action.  See TMEP §§705.02, 709.06.  The USPTO does not accept emails as responses to Office actions; however, emails can be used for informal communications and are included in the application record.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(c), 2.191; TMEP §§304.01-.02, 709.04-.05.

 

 

/April Roach/

April Roach

Examining Attorney

Law Office 115

571-272-1092

April.Roach@uspto.gov

 

 

RESPONSE GUIDANCE

• Missing the response deadline to this letter will cause the application to abandon.  A response or notice of appeal must be received by the USPTO before midnight Eastern Time of the last day of the response period.  TEAS and ESTTA maintenance or unforeseen circumstances could affect an applicant’s ability to timely respond.  

 

• Responses signed by an unauthorized party are not accepted and can cause the application to abandon.  If applicant does not have an attorney, the response must be signed by the individual applicant, all joint applicants, or someone with legal authority to bind a juristic applicant.  If applicant has an attorney, the response must be signed by the attorney.

 

• If needed, find contact information for the supervisor of the office or unit listed in the signature block.