To: | Barhyte Specialty Foods, Inc. (praney@kelrun.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88470933 - SUZIE'S - 22861/006 |
Sent: | September 12, 2019 02:53:32 PM |
Sent As: | ecom102@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 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88470933
Mark: SUZIE'S
|
|
Correspondence Address: |
|
Applicant: Barhyte Specialty Foods, Inc.
|
|
Reference/Docket No. 22861/006
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 12, 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.
1. SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
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 [or services] and differences in the marks.”); TMEP §1207.01.
Statement of Facts Specific to this Application:
Applicant has applied to register the mark SUZIE'S in standard characters in International Class 30 for dipping sauces, cocktail sauces, soy sauce, ketchup, mayonnaise, Worcestershire sauce, and tartar sauce.
Registrant’s mark is SUSIE'S HOT SAUCE, a design in International Class 30 for food condiments, specifically hot sauce.
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)); 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). Matter that is descriptive of or generic for a party’s goods is typically less significant or less dominant in relation to other wording in a mark. See Anheuser-Busch, LLC v. Innvopak Sys. Pty Ltd., 115 USPQ2d 1816, 1824-25 (TTAB 2015) (citing In re Chatam Int’l Inc., 380 F.3d 1340, 1342-43, 71 USPQ2d 1944, 1946 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).
In the present case, the marks are nearly identical in part because the dominant word that creates the commercial impression for each mark is “SUZIE'S” or the alternate spelling “SUSIE’S.” (See:
http://www.behindthename.com/name/suzie and http://www.behindthename.com/name/susie) These terms are not only nearly identical in appearance, they are also phonetically identical and have the same commercial impression being a possessive for the diminutive form of “SUSAN.” It is the only word in applicant’s mark and is the dominant word in registrant’s mark because it identifies the producer of the registrant’s hot sauce. The wording “HOT SAUCE” in registrant’s mark is not dominant because it is non-distinctive wording. When comparing the terms of primary significance for both marks, SUZIE'S and SUSIE'S HOT SAUCE, they are likely to cause confusion between the source of applicant’s and registrant’s goods because they create a similar commercial impression, i.e., both being produced by SUZIE.
Because the term of primary significance in the marks SUZIE'S and SUSIE'S HOT SAUCE is the same and creates the same commercial impression, the marks are considered similar for likelihood of confusion purposes.
Relatedness of the Goods:
Horseshoe Brand Marketplace manufactures and sells hot sauce and barbecue sauce
Yummy Bazaar sells hot sauce, ketchup, mayonnaise and tartar sauce
Texas Pete manufactures and sells hot sauce and cocktail sauce
Simple Truth Organic manufactures and sells hot sauce, ketchup, ranch dressing and soy sauce
Melinda’s manufactures and sells hot sauce and ketchup
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).
Additionally, the goods 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 are related for purposes of the likelihood of confusion analysis.
Because the marks are similar and the goods are related, there is a likelihood of confusion as to the source of applicant’s goods. Therefore, applicant’s mark is not entitled to registration.
Applicant must clarify whether the name Suzie in the mark identifies a particular living individual. See 37 C.F.R. §2.61(b); TMEP §§813, 1206.03. In this case, the application neither specifies whether the name in the mark identifies a particular living individual nor includes a written consent. See TMEP §§813.01(a)-(b), 1206.04(a), 1206.05. However, a review of the attached page from applicant’s website (See: http://barhyte.com/about-us/) indicates that Suzie is Suzie Barhyte and the website portrays Suzie Barhyte as publicly connected with applicant’s business and in a way in which the relevant public would perceive the name Suzie Barhyte as identifying a particular living individual. See TMEP §1206.02
To register a mark that consists of or comprises the name of a particular living individual, including a first name, pseudonym, stage name, or nickname, an applicant must provide a written consent personally signed by the named individual. 15 U.S.C. §1052(c); TMEP §§813, 1206.04(a).
Accordingly, if the name in the mark does not identify a particular living individual, applicant must submit a statement to that effect (e.g., “The name shown in the mark does not identify a particular living individual.”).
However, if the name in the mark does identify a particular living individual, applicant must submit both of the following:
(1) The following statement: “The name shown in the mark identifies a living individual whose consent to register is made of record.” If the name is a pseudonym, stage name, or nickname, applicant must provide the following statement: “Suzie identifies Suzie Barhyte, a living individual whose consent is of record.”
(2) A written consent, personally signed by the named individual, as follows: “I, Suzie Barhyte, consent to the use and registration of my name, Suzie, as a trademark and/or service mark with the USPTO.”
For an overview of the requirements pertaining to names appearing in marks, and instructions on how to satisfy this requirement online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) response form, please go to http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/law/consent.jsp.
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.
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
/Edward J. Germick/
Examing Attorney
Law Office 102
(571) 272-5862
edward.germick@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE