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:  February 24, 2020

 

 

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.

 

 

SUMMARY OF ISSUES:

• Prior Pending Applications – Potential Section 2(d) Likelihood of Confusion Refusal
• Section 2(d) Likelihood of Confusion Refusal
• Disclaimer
• Mark Description/Color
• Identification of Goods

 

Prior Pending Applications

 

The filing dates of pending U.S. Application Serial Nos. 321151 and 88362999 precede applicant’s filing date.  See attached referenced applications.  If one or more of the marks in the referenced applications register, applicant’s mark may be refused registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d) because of a likelihood of confusion with the registered mark(s).  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); 37 C.F.R. §2.83; TMEP §§1208 et seq.  Therefore, upon receipt of applicant’s response to this Office action, action on this application may be suspended pending final disposition of the earlier-filed referenced applications.

 

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 marks in the referenced applications.  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.

 

 

Likelihood of Confusion – Section 2(d) Refusal

 

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 4036259.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registration.

 

 

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. 

 

 

Similarity of 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).

 

 

 

Applicant’s mark is “SPECTRUM EXTRACTS” with a design element. 

 

 

 

Registrant’s mark is “SPECTRUM” in standard characters. 

 

 

The marks are similar because they both begin with or consist entirely of the word “SPECTRUM”.  

 

 

Adding a term, such as “EXTRACTS”, to a registered mark generally 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 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 and BENGAL LANCER and design confusingly similar); In re Toshiba Med. Sys. Corp., 91 USPQ2d 1266, 1269 (TTAB 2009) (finding TITAN and VANTAGE TITAN confusingly similar); In re El Torito Rests., Inc., 9 USPQ2d 2002, 2004 (TTAB 1988) (finding MACHO and MACHO COMBOS confusingly similar); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iii).  In the present case, the marks are identical in part.

 

 

Please note that a mark in typed or standard characters, such as applicant’s, may be displayed in any lettering style; the rights reside in the wording or other literal element and not in any particular display or rendition.  See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1363, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1909 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 1348, 94 USPQ2d 1257, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010); 37 C.F.R. §2.52(a); TMEP §1207.01(c)(iii).  Thus, a mark presented in stylized characters and/or with a design element, such as registrant’s, generally will not avoid likelihood of confusion with a mark in typed or standard characters because the word portion could be presented in the same manner of display.  See, e.g., In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d at 1363, 101 USPQ2d at 1909; Squirtco v. Tomy Corp., 697 F.2d 1038, 1041, 216 USPQ 937, 939 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (stating that “the argument concerning a difference in type style is not viable where one party asserts rights in no particular display”).

 

 

 

Accordingly, the relevant marks are sufficiently similar to support a finding of likelihood of confusion.

 

 

Similarity of Goods

 

The compared goods and/or services 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).

 

 

 

Applicant’s goods are “Smoking articles (extracts, vape) derived from industrial hemp, containing less than 0.30% THC on a dry weight basis.” 

 

 

 

Registrant’s goods are “Cigarettes; tobacco”. 

 

 

 

These goods are overlapping and/or highly related in that applicant’s smoking articles encompass being and/or being for use with cigarettes and/or tobacco and registrant’s cigarettes and tobacco encompass being hemp cigarettes and hemp tobacco. 

 

Accordingly, based on the similarity of the marks and the relatedness of the goods, registration of the applicant’s mark is refused under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.

 

Although the examining attorney has refused registration, the applicant has the option to respond to the refusal to register by submitting evidence and legal arguments in support of registration.  If the applicant chooses to respond to the refusal to register, the applicant must also respond to the following refusal(s)/requirement(s).

 

 

Disclaimer

 

Applicant must disclaim the descriptive wording “EXTRACTS” apart from the mark as shown because it merely describes an ingredient, quality, characteristic, function, feature, purpose or use of applicant’s goods.  See 15 U.S.C. §§1052(e)(1), 1056(a); In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d 1293, 1297, 75 USPQ2d 1420, 1421 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Gyulay, 820 F.2d 1216, 1217-18, 3 USPQ2d 1009, 1010 (Fed. Cir. 1987); TMEP §§1213, 1213.03(a). 

 

A “disclaimer” is a statement in the application record that applicant does not claim exclusive rights to an unregistrable component of a mark; a disclaimer does not affect the appearance of the mark or physically remove disclaimed matter from the mark.  TMEP §§1213, 1213.10.  An unregistrable component of a mark includes wording and designs that are merely descriptive of and/or generic for an applicant’s goods.  15 U.S.C. §1052(e); see TMEP §§1209.03(f), 1213.03 et seq.  Such words or designs need to be freely available for other businesses to market comparable goods or services and should not become the proprietary domain of any one party.  See Dena Corp. v. Belvedere Int’l, Inc., 950 F.2d 1555, 1560, 21 USPQ2d 1047, 1051 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re Aug. Storck KG, 218 USPQ 823, 825 (TTAB 1983).

 

In this case, the attached evidence from www.merriam-webster.com shows this wording “EXTRACTS” means “a product (such as an essence or concentrate) prepared by extracting”.  Therefore, the wording merely describes to consumers that applicant’s goods are and/or encompass being products that are prepared by extracting.  See applicant’s identification of goods, which specifically includes extracts. 

 

Applicant may respond to this issue by submitting a disclaimer in the following format:

 

No claim is made to the exclusive right to use “EXTRACTS” apart from the mark as shown.

 

TMEP §§1213.03(c), 1213.08(a)(i); see In re Owatonna Tool Co., 231 USPQ 493, 494 (Comm’r Pats. 1983).

 

 

Failure to comply with a disclaimer requirement can result in a refusal to register the entire mark.  TMEP §1213.01(b).

 

 

Mark Description/Color

 

Applicant must clarify the colors that are being claimed as a feature of the mark.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.37, 2.52(b)(1), 2.61(b); TMEP §§807.07(a) et seq.  The drawing shows the mark in the colors black, white, orange, yellow and green; however, the colors white, red, yellow, orange, and green appear in the color claim and mark description.

 

Where the color claim and/or description of the mark and drawing are inconsistent with one another, generally the USPTO looks to the drawing to determine what the mark is.  TMEP §807.07(a)(i)-(a)(ii), (c).  Additionally, the colors in the drawing, color claim, and description must match.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.52(b)(1); TMEP §§807.07 et seq. 

 

To clarify the colors in the mark, applicant may satisfy one of the following:

 

(1)        Submit a new color drawing that shows the mark in the colors specified in the color claim and description.  TMEP §807.07(c).  However, any other amendments to the drawing will not be accepted if they would materially alter the mark.  37 C.F.R. §2.72; see TMEP §§807.07(c), 807.14 et seq.

 

(2)        Submit an amended color claim and description that matches the colors in the drawing.  Generic color names must be used to describe the colors in the mark, e.g., red, yellow, blue.  TMEP §807.07(a)(i)-(ii).  If black, white, and/or gray represent background, outlining, shading, and/or transparent areas and are not part of the mark, applicant must so specify in the description.  See TMEP §807.07(d). 

 

The following color claim and description are suggested if applicant is claiming the black rectangle surrounding the other elements of the mark:

 

 

Color claim:  “The colors black, white, orange, yellow and green are claimed as a feature of the mark.”

 

Description:  “The mark consists of a black rectangle containing the white word “SPECTRUM” above a horizontal line in the colors orange, yellow and green, which is above the white word “EXTRACTS”.

 

The following color claim and description are suggested if applicant is not claiming the black rectangle surrounding the other elements of the mark as a feature of its mark:

 

Color claim:  “The colors white, orange, yellow and green are claimed as a feature of the mark.”

 

Description:  “The mark consists of a black rectangle containing the white word “SPECTRUM” above a horizontal line in the colors orange, yellow and green, which is above the white word “EXTRACTS”.  The color black appearing in the mark is for background purposes only and is not claimed as a feature of the mark.

 

 

For more information about drawings and instructions on how to submit a new color drawing, amended color claim and/or description online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form, see the Drawing webpage.

 

 

 

Identification of Goods Must Be Clarified

 

Wording in the identification of goods is (1) indefinite and must be clarified, (2) overbroad in that it encompasses goods in more than one international classification and/or (3) misclassified.  See TMEP §1402.01.  Please see suggested identification below for specific wording that requires clarification and/or reclassification.

 

 

Applicant may adopt the following identification, if accurate.  Please note that bolded wording/punctuation indicates a suggested addition(s)/amendment(s) to applicant’s current identification and wording/punctuation with a line through it indicates language of which the examining attorney is suggesting deletion.  In addition, please note that the bracketed entries below require applicant to insert information.  Finally, please note that the suggested identification includes an additional international classification and, if applicant adopts this suggested identification, applicant will need to comply with the requirements set forth in the multiple class requirements section below.   

 

Class 3:

 

“Smoking articles, namely, essential oils for flavoring tobacco derived from industrial hemp, containing less than 0.30% THC on a dry weight basis; smoking articles, namely, electronic cigarette liquid (e-liquid) comprised of essential oils derived from industrial hemp, containing less than 0.30% THC on a dry weight basis.”

 

Class 34:

 

“Smoking articles (extracts, vape) , namely, {insert specific type/nature of articles, e.g. electronic cigarette liquid (e-liquid) comprised of flavorings in liquid form, other than essential oils, used to refill electronic cigarette cartridges} derived from industrial hemp, containing less than 0.30% THC on a dry weight basis.”

 

Identifications of goods and/or services can be amended only to clarify or limit the goods and/or services; adding to or broadening the scope of the goods and/or services is not permitted.  37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); see TMEP §§1402.06 et seq., 1402.07.  Therefore, applicant may not amend the identification to include goods and/or services that are not within the scope of the goods and/or services set forth in the present identification.

 

 

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.

 

 

Multiple Class Requirements - Advisory

 

The application identifies goods and/or services in more than one international class; therefore, applicant must satisfy all the requirements below for each international class based on Trademark Act Section 1(b):

 

(1)        List the goods and/or services by their international class number in consecutive numerical order, starting with the lowest numbered class.

 

(2)        Submit a filing fee for each international class not covered by the fee(s) already paid (view the USPTO’s current fee schedule).  The application identifies goods and/or services that are classified in at least two classes; however, applicant submitted a fee(s) sufficient for only one class(es).  Applicant must either submit the filing fees for the classes not covered by the submitted fees or restrict the application to the number of classes covered by the fees already paid.

 

See 37 C.F.R. §2.86(a); TMEP §§1403.01, 1403.02(c).

 

For an overview of the requirements for a Section 1(b) multiple-class application and how to satisfy the requirements online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form, see the Multiple-class Application webpage.

 

 

Responding to this Office Action

 

 

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

 

 

For this application to proceed toward registration, applicant must explicitly address each refusal and/or requirement raised in this Office action.  If the action includes a refusal, applicant may provide arguments and/or evidence as to why the refusal should be withdrawn and the mark should register.  Applicant may also have other options for responding to a refusal and should consider such options carefully.  To respond to requirements and certain refusal response options, applicant should set forth in writing the required changes or statements. 

 

 

If applicant does not respond to this Office action within six months of the issue/mailing date, or responds by expressly abandoning the application, the application process will end, the trademark will fail to register, and the application fee will not be refunded.  See 15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.65(a), 2.68(a), 2.209(a); TMEP §§405.04, 718.01, 718.02.  Where the application has been abandoned for failure to respond to an Office action, applicant’s only option would be to file a timely petition to revive the application, which, if granted, would allow the application to return to active status.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.66; TMEP §1714.   There is a $100 fee for such petitions.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.6, 2.66(b)(1).

 

 

Trademark Attorney – Advisory

 

Because of the legal technicalities and strict deadlines of the trademark application process, applicant is encouraged to hire a private attorney who specializes in trademark matters to assist in this process.  The assigned trademark examining attorney can provide only limited assistance explaining the content of an Office action and the application process.  USPTO staff cannot provide legal advice or statements about an applicant’s legal rights.  TMEP §§705.02, 709.06.  See Hiring a U.S.-licensed trademark attorney for more information. 

 

 

 

Telephone/Email Suggested for Questions

 

Please 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. 

 

 

/Meghan Reinhart/

Meghan M. Reinhart

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 108

(571) 272-2943

meghan.reinhart@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.

 

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

 

USPTO OFFICIAL NOTICE

 

Office Action (Official Letter) has issued

on February 24, 2020 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88480912

 

Your trademark application has been reviewed by a trademark examining attorney.  As part of that review, the assigned attorney has issued an official letter that you must respond to by the specified deadline or your application will be abandoned.  Please follow the steps below.

 

(1)  Read the official letter.

 

(2)  Direct questions about the contents of the Office action to the assigned attorney below. 

 

 

/Meghan Reinhart/

Meghan M. Reinhart

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 108

(571) 272-2943

meghan.reinhart@uspto.gov

 

 

Direct questions about navigating USPTO electronic forms, the USPTO website, the application process, the status of your application, and/or whether there are outstanding deadlines or documents related to your file to the Trademark Assistance Center (TAC).

 

(3)  Respond within 6 months (or earlier, if required in the Office action) from February 24, 2020, using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS).  The response must be received by the USPTO before midnight Eastern Time of the last day of the response period.  See the Office action for more information about how to respond

 

 

 

GENERAL GUIDANCE

·         Check the status of your application periodically in the Trademark Status & Document Retrieval (TSDR) database to avoid missing critical deadlines.

 

·         Update your correspondence email address, if needed, to ensure you receive important USPTO notices about your application.

 

·         Beware of misleading notices sent by private companies about your application.  Private companies not associated with the USPTO use public information available in trademark registrations to mail and email trademark-related offers and notices – most of which require fees.  All official USPTO correspondence will only be emailed from the domain “@uspto.gov.”