Reconsideration Letter

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

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

REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

AFTER FINAL ACTION

DENIED

Issue date:  February 21, 2020

Applicant’s request for reconsideration is denied.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b)(3).  The trademark examining attorney has carefully reviewed applicant’s request and determined the request did not:  (1) raise a new issue, (2) resolve all the outstanding issue(s), (3) provide any new or compelling evidence with regard to the outstanding issue(s), or (4) present analysis and arguments that were persuasive or shed new light on the outstanding issue(s).  TMEP §§715.03(a)(ii)(B), 715.04(a). 

Specifically, applicant did not provide arguments or evidence against the finding of a likelihood of confusion with cited U.S. Reg. No. 4157916 for the identical mark PAMPLONA for restaurant services.  In addition, applicant did not provide an explanation of the mark’s significance. 

With respect to the Section 2(d) refusal, the trademark examining attorney still believes a likelihood of confusion exists between the applied-for mark PAMPLONA for “Cider, non-alcoholic; Fruit juice; Fruit juices; Fruit nectars; Fruit drinks and juices; Non-alcoholic fruit juice beverages; Organic fruit juice; Vegetable-fruit juices” and the registered mark PAMPLONA for “Restaurant services.”  Here, the registered services are broad enough to encompass all types of restaurant services, including those that serve juices, have carry out and dine-in services, and those that also offer goods for sale.  Moreover, in addition to the evidence provided in the first and final Office actions, the following evidence, consisting of screenshots of webpages from entities offering the applied-for beverages and the registered restaurant services, shows that the same entity commonly provides the respective goods and services and markets these under the same mark. 

·         http://cleanjuice.com/

·         http://pureejuicebar.com/

·         http://www.juicebarpbh.com/

·         http://www.rootsrawjuicebar.com/

·         http://www.ripejuicebar.com/

Moreover, the trademark examining attorney has attached evidence from the USPTO’s X-Search database consisting of a number of third-party marks registered for use in connection with the same or similar goods and services as those of both applicant and registrant in this case.  This evidence shows that the goods and services listed therein, namely, fruit juice beverages and restaurant services, are of a kind that may emanate from a single source under a single mark.  See In re I-Coat Co., 126 USPQ2d 1730, 1737 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re Infinity Broad. Corp., 60 USPQ2d 1214, 1217-18 (TTAB 2001); In re Albert Trostel & Sons Co.,29 USPQ2d 1783, 1785-86 (TTAB 1993); In re Mucky Duck Mustard Co., 6 USPQ2d 1467, 1470 n.6 (TTAB 1988)); TMEP §1207.01(d)(iii).

All of this evidence demonstrates that the applied for beverages and the registered restaurant services are related.  Therefore, consumers encountering identical marks for related goods and services are likely to be confused as to the source of the goods and services and mistakenly believe they emanate from the same source.

Accordingly, the following refusal and requirement made final in the Office action dated January 22, 2020 are maintained and continued: 

• Final Section 2(d) Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion with Cited U.S. Reg. No. 4157916
• Final Requirement for Explanation of Mark’s Significance

See TMEP §§715.03(a)(ii)(B), 715.04(a). 

In addition, the following refusals made final in that Office action are obviated: 

• Section 2(d) Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion with Cited U.S. Reg. Nos. 5562616 and 2092486

See TMEP §§715.03(a)(ii)(B), 715.04(a).

If applicant has already filed an appeal with the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, the Board will be notified to resume the appeal.  See TMEP §715.04(a).

If applicant has not filed an appeal and time remains in the six-month response period, applicant has the remainder of that time to (1) file another request for reconsideration that complies with and/or overcomes any outstanding final requirement(s) and/or refusal(s), and/or (2) file a notice of appeal to the Board.  TMEP §715.03(a)(ii)(B).  Filing a request for reconsideration does not stay or extend the time for filing an appeal.  37 C.F.R. §2.63(b)(3); see TMEP §715.03(c). 

/Elizabeth A. O'Brien/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 105

(571) 272-0046

Elizabeth.OBrien@uspto.gov

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

USPTO OFFICIAL NOTICE

Office Action (Official Letter) has issued

on February 21, 2020 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88484724

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. 

/Elizabeth A. O'Brien/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 105

(571) 272-0046

Elizabeth.OBrien@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 21, 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.”