To: | Avery Brewing Company, LLC (trademarkdepartment@bhgrlaw.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88472479 - STAMPEDE - 93010.00010 |
Sent: | November 16, 2019 10:46:41 AM |
Sent As: | ecom124@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 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88472479
Mark: STAMPEDE
|
|
Correspondence Address: BERG HILL GREENLEAF RUSCITTI LLP
|
|
Applicant: Avery Brewing Company, LLC
|
|
Reference/Docket No. 93010.00010
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) and/or Electronic System for Trademark Trials and Appeals (ESTTA). A link to the appropriate TEAS response form and/or to ESTTA for an appeal appears at the end of this Office action.
Issue date: November 16, 2019
This Office action is in response to applicant's communication filed on October 28, 2019.
In a previous Office action dated September 9, 2019, the trademark examining attorney refused registration of the applied-for mark based on the following: Trademark Act Section 2(d) for a likelihood of confusion with a registered mark.
The examining attorney considered the applicant's arguments in response and finds them unpersuasive and remains of the opinion that the applicant's mark is confusingly similar to the registered mark in U.S. Registration No. 5325489. Accordingly, the refusal under Trademark Act Section 2(d) is now made FINAL.
SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
The refusal of registration of the applied-for mark because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 5325489 is hereby made Final. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.
Applicant’s mark is STAMPEDE (in standard character form) for "beer" in International Class 32.
Registrant's mark is STAMPEDE (Reg. No. 5325489) for "Non-alcoholic beverages, namely, energy drinks, sports drinks, and carbonated drinks" in International Class 32.
Comparison of Marks:
In the present case, applicant’s mark is STAMPEDE and registrant’s mark is STAMPEDE. 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.
In response, applicant argues that the packaging for the goods is distinct, obviating any confusion. However, the analysis pertains to the marks as shown in the application and registration. Evidence or arguments concerning actual use of the marks in commerce with added designs or stylization are not probative in an ex parte proceeding. See e.g. In re Aquitaine Wine USA, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1181, 1186 (TTAB 2018) ("[W]e do not consider how Applicant and Registrant actually use their marks in the marketplace, but rather how they appear in the registration and the application. We must compare the marks as they appear in the drawings, and not on any labels that may have additional wording or information.")
Relatedness of Goods:
The compared goods need not be identical or even competitive to find a likelihood of confusion. See On-line Careline Inc. v. Am. Online Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 1086, 56 USPQ2d 1471, 1475 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Recot, Inc. v. Becton, 214 F.3d 1322, 1329, 54 USPQ2d 1894, 1898 (Fed. Cir. 2000); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i). They need only be “related in some manner and/or if the circumstances surrounding their marketing are such that they could give rise to the mistaken belief that [the goods and/or services] emanate from the same source.” Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1369, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1722 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting 7-Eleven Inc. v. Wechsler, 83 USPQ2d 1715, 1724 (TTAB 2007)); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).
Here, applicant’s beer and registrant’s carbonated drinks are closely related because the same entity commonly provides applicant’s and registrant’s goods, under the same mark.
In addition, the TTAB has found that beer and energy drinks are closely related. See e.g. Tap It Brewing Co., LLC vs. Tap or Nap LLC, Opposition No. 91208370 (2016). The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board has stated that decisions designated as not precedential are not binding upon the Board but may be cited and considered for whatever persuasive value they might have. In re Soc’y of Health & Physical Educators, 127 USPQ2d 1584, 1587 n.7 (TTAB 2018); TBMP §§101.03, 1203.02(f); TMEP §705.05.
The third-party registrations and Internet evidence show that the applicant’s goods and the registrant’s goods are closely related and travel through similar trade channels to the same class of consumers.
Thus, upon encountering registrant’s mark used for non-alcoholic beverages, namely, energy drinks, sports drinks, and carbonated drinks and applicant’s mark used for beer, consumers are likely to be confused and mistakenly believe that the respective goods emanate from a common source.
In response, applicant argues that the goods are not related because they are not identical or overlapping. However, as indicated above, the compared goods need not be identical or even competitive to find a likelihood of confusion. See On-line Careline Inc. v. Am. Online Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 1086, 56 USPQ2d 1471, 1475 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Recot, Inc. v. Becton, 214 F.3d 1322, 1329, 54 USPQ2d 1894, 1898 (Fed. Cir. 2000); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).
In addition, applicant argues that the goods travel in different channels of trade to different classes of consumers. However, determining likelihood of confusion is based on the description of the goods 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)). Here, 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.
Given the foregoing, registration is refused under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.
RESPONSE GUIDELINES
Applicant must respond within six months of the date of issuance of this final Office action or the application will be abandoned. 15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §2.65(a). Applicant may respond by providing one or both of the following:
(1) A request for reconsideration that fully resolves all outstanding requirements and refusals; and/or
(2) An appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board with the required filing fees.
TMEP §715.01; see 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b)(1)-(2).
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 final Office action and/or appeal it to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB)
/Tara L. Bhupathi/
Examining Attorney
Law Office 124
(571) 272-5557
tara.bhupathi@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE