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:  July 14, 2020

 

INTRODUCTION

 

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:

• Section 2(d) Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion
• FDCA Refusal – Based on ID – No Bona Fide Intent to Lawfully Use in Commerce as of Filing Date
• Controlled Substances Act Compliance Advisory
• • Identification of Goods in International Classes 5 and 30

 

SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION

 

THIS PARTIAL REFUSAL APPLIES TO CLASSES 5 AND 34 ONLY

 

 

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registrations Nos. 5948862 “PV” and 4873690 “PV”.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registrations.

 

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. 

 

Applicant has applied for the mark “PV” for:

 

Class 5: Nutritional supplements consisting primarily of cannabidiol

 

Class 34: Electronic cigarettes

 

Registrant owns the mark “PV” for “Dietary and nutritional supplements” in International Class 5.

 

Registrant owns the mark “PV” for “Boxes for electronic cigarettes and electronic cigarette accessories; Electric cigarettes; Electronic cigarette liquid (e-liquid) comprised of flavorings in liquid form used to refill electronic cigarette cartridges” in International Class 34.

 

The overriding concern is not only to prevent buyer confusion as to the source of the goods and/or services, but to protect the registrant from adverse commercial impact due to use of a similar mark by a newcomer.  See In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1208, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1690 (Fed. Cir. 1993).  Therefore, any doubt regarding a likelihood of confusion determination is resolved in favor of the registrant.  TMEP §1207.01(d)(i); see Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1265, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1003 (Fed. Cir. 2002); In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 464-65, 6 USPQ2d 1025, 1026 (Fed. Cir. 1988).

 

Similarity 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).

 

Here, applicant’s mark “PV” is similar in sound, appearance, and meaning to registrants’ marks “PV” and “PV”.

 

The wording portion of the marks, “PV”, is identical. When evaluating a composite mark consisting of words and a design, the word portion is normally accorded greater weight because it is likely to make a greater impression upon purchasers, be remembered by them, and be used by them to refer to or request the goods and/or services.  In re Aquitaine Wine USA, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1181, 1184 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); TMEP §1207.01(c)(ii).  Thus, although marks must be compared in their entireties, the word portion is often considered the dominant feature and is accorded greater weight in determining whether marks are confusingly similar, even where the word portion has been disclaimed.  In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d at 1366-67, 101 USPQ2d at 1911 (citing Giant Food, Inc. v. Nation’s Foodservice, Inc., 710 F.2d 1565, 1570-71, 218 USPQ2d 390, 395 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). Here, the word portions of the marks are all “PV”, and are therefore identical in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression; thus, the addition of a design element does not obviate the similarity of the marks in this case.  See In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1206, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1993); TMEP §1207.01(c)(ii).

 

Therefore, the marks are confusingly similar.

 

Relatedness of the Goods/Services

 

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).

 

Here, applicant has applied for cannabidiol supplements and electronic cigarettes, which are related to registrants’ supplements and smoking articles including electronic cigarettes.

 

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

 

First, the applicant’s cannabidiol supplements are encompassed by the registrant’s dietary and nutritional supplements. In this case, the registration use(s) broad wording to describe “Dietary and nutritional supplements,” which presumably encompasses all goods of the type described, including applicant’s more narrow “Nutritional supplements consisting primarily of cannabidiol.”  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).  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)).

 

Second, the applicant’s “electronic cigarettes” and the “electronic cigarettes” in the registration are identical.  Therefore, it is presumed that the channels of trade and classes of purchasers are the same for these goods.  See Cai v. Diamond Hong, Inc., 901 F.3d 1367, 1372, 127 USPQ2d 1797, 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). 

 

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)). 

 

Therefore, the applicant’s goods are related to the registrant’s goods.

 

Applicant’s mark “PV” is similar to registrants’ marks “PV” and “PV” in sound, appearance, and meaning. The goods of the parties are also closely related, rendering the marks confusingly similar for purposes of a likelihood of confusion.

 

 

FDCA REFUSAL – BASED ON ID – NO BONA FIDE INTENT TO LAWFULLY USE IN COMMERCE AS OF FILING DATE

 

THIS PARTIAL REFUSAL APPLIES TO CLASSES 5 AND 30 ONLY

 

Registration is refused because applicant does not have a bona fide intent to lawfully use the applied-for mark in commerce.  Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1127; see TMEP §907. 

 

To qualify for federal trademark/service mark registration, the use of a mark in commerce must be lawful.  Gray v. Daffy Dan’s Bargaintown, 823 F.2d 522, 526, 3 USPQ2d 1306, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (stating that “[a] valid application cannot be filed at all for registration of a mark without ‘lawful use in commerce’”); TMEP §907; see In re Stellar Int’l, Inc., 159 USPQ 48, 50-51 (TTAB 1968); Coahoma Chemical Co., Inc. v. Smith, 113 USPQ 413 (Com’r Pat. & Trademarks 1957) (concluding that “use of a mark in connection with unlawful shipments in interstate commerce is not use of a mark in commerce which the [Office] may recognize.”).  Thus, the goods/services to which the mark is to be applied must comply with all applicable federal laws.  See In re Brown, 119 USPQ2d 1350, 1351 (TTAB 2016) (citing In re Midwest Tennis & Track Co., 29 USPQ2d 1386, 1386 n.2 (TTAB 1993) (noting that “[i]t is settled that the Trademark Act’s requirement of ‘use in commerce,’ means a ‘lawful use in commerce’”)); In re Pepcom Indus., Inc., 192 USPQ 400, 401 (TTAB 1976); TMEP §907. 

The items or activities listed in the application in connection with which the mark is intended to be used involve a per se violation of federal law.  See In re Brown, 119 USPQ2d at 1352.  The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) prohibits the introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of a food to which has been added a drug approved under Section 355 of the Act or a biological product licensed under 42 U.S.C. §262.  21 U.S.C. §331(ll); see also 21 U.S.C. §321(ff) (indicating that a dietary supplement is deemed to be a food within the meaning of the FDCA and does not include an article that is approved as a new drug under 21 U.S.C.  §355, certified as an antibiotic under 21 U.S.C. §357, or licensed as a biologic under 42 U.S.C.  §262).

Cannabidiol (CBD), a chemical constituent of the cannabis plant, was the subject of substantial clinical investigations before it was marketed in foods or as dietary supplements.  On June 25, 2018, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the first prescription pharmaceutical formulation of plant-derived CBD, Epidiolex®, for the treatment of two rare forms of epilepsy, Lennox-Gastaut syndrome and Dravet syndrome.  The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) placed Epidiolex® on schedule V of the CSA on September 27, 2018.  Nevertheless, marijuana and CBD derived from marijuana remain unlawful.  No other cannabis-derived drug products have been approved by the FDA.  Under the FDCA, any product intended to have a therapeutic or medical use, and any product (other than a food) that is intended to affect the structure or function of the body of humans or animals, is a drug.  21 U.S.C. § 321(g)(1)  An unapproved new drug cannot be distributed or sold in interstate commerce unless it is the subject of an FDA-approved new drug application (NDA) or abbreviated new drug application (ANDA). 21 U.S.C. §§ 331(d) and 355(a), (b), & (j); see also FDA Regulation of Cannabis and Cannabis-Derived Products: Questions and Answers http://www.fda.gov/news-events/public-health-focus/fda-regulation-cannabis-and-cannabis-derived-products-questions-and-answers copy attached.

In the present case, the application identifies applicant’s goods and/or services as follows:

Class 5: Nutritional supplements consisting primarily of cannabidiol

 

Class 30: Chocolate bars; Chocolates containing nutrients; Gummy candies

 

The Class 5 identification specifically states that the goods contain cannabidiol. Furthermore, it can be presumed that the Class 30 goods also contain cannabidiol because the attached excerpt from applicant’s website plainly indicates that applicant’s identified goods include items and/or activities that are prohibited by the FDCA, namely, food products containing CBD and that such goods are currently being marketed, promoted or offered for sale to consumers.

It is unlawful to introduce food to which CBD, an “article that is approved as a new drug,” has been added into interstate commerce or to market CBD as, or in, dietary supplements, regardless of whether the substances are hemp-derived. 21 U.S.C. §§321(ff)(3)(B)(ii), 331(d), 355(a); see also 21 U.S.C.  §352(f)(1) regarding mislabeled drugs.  See also Statement from FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, M.D., on signing of the Agriculture Improvement Act and the agency’s regulation of products containing cannabis and cannabis-derived compounds.

 http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm628988.htm copy attached. 

 

In order for an application to have a valid basis that could properly result in a registration, the use of the mark has to be lawful.  See In re Pepcom Indus., Inc., 192 USPQ 400, 401 (TTAB 1976)  Because introduction of such goods into commerce was not lawful as of the filing date, applicant did not have a bona fide intent to use the applied-for mark in lawful commerce in connection with such goods and/or the identified services.  See e.g. In re JJ206, LLC, 120 USPQ2d 1568, 1569 (TTAB 2016) (“where the identified goods are illegal under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), the applicant cannot use its mark in lawful commerce, and ‘it is a legal impossibility’ for the applicant to have the requisite bona fide intent to use the mark.”); see also In re Brown, 119 USPQ2d, 1351-1352; TMEP §907.   

 

CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT COMPLIANCE ADVISORY

 

Use of a mark in commerce must be lawful use to be the basis for federal registration of the mark.   Gray v. Daffy Dan’s Bargaintown, 823 F.2d 522, 526, 3 USPQ2d 1306, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (stating that “[a] valid application cannot be filed at all for registration of a mark without ‘lawful use in commerce’”); TMEP §907. Thus, the goods and/or services to which the mark is applied must comply with all applicable federal laws.  See In re Brown, 119 USPQ2d 1350, 1351 (TTAB 2016) (citing In re Midwest Tennis & Track Co., 29 USPQ2d 1386, 1386 n.2 (TTAB 1993) (noting that “[i]t is settled that the Trademark Act’s requirement of ‘use in commerce,’ means a ‘lawful use in commerce’”)); In re Pepcom Indus., Inc., 192 USPQ 400, 401 (TTAB 1976); TMEP §907.

 

Cannabidiol (CBD) is a nonpsychoactive constituent of the cannabis plant. Goods containing CBD derived from cannabis that meets the definition of “marijuana” are illegal under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), 21 U.S.C. §§801-971. On December 20, 2018, the CSA was amended to remove “hemp” from the definition of “marijuana” and specifically exclude “tetrahydrocannabinols in hemp (as defined under section 297A of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946)” from Schedule I, 21 U.S.C. §812(c)(17). See the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, Pub. L. 115-334 (the 2018 Farm Bill), which amends the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (AMA).

 

DATE OF FIRST USE IN COMMERCE ADVISORY: Applicant is advised that to avoid or overcome a refusal based on unlawful use prohibited by the CSA upon the filing an amendment to allege use or statement of use, the date of first use of the mark in commerce must be no earlier than December 20, 2018, the date on which the 2018 Farm Bill was signed into law.

 

IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS/SERVICES IN INTERNATIONAL CLASSES 5 AND 30

 

The wording in the identification of goods/services in International Classes 5 and 30 is unacceptable as written because it fails to indicate the nature of the applied-for goods/services with sufficient specificity. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.

 

Applicant’s identified goods and/or services include: Class 5 “nutritional supplements consisting primarily of cannabidiol” and Class 30 “Chocolate bars; Chocolates containing nutrients; Gummy candies”. These goods/services do not specify the source of the CBD contained therein.  Thus, the application includes items or activities that would still be prohibited under the CSA, namely those including CBD derived from marijuana.  Therefore, applicant would not have a valid filing basis for any such items or activities. 

 

To the extent applicant’s goods are derived solely from cannabis plants that meet the current statutory definition of “hemp,” such goods may be lawful.

 

Applicant must amend the identification of goods and services to specify that all cannabidiol-containing items are “solely derived from hemp with a delta-9 tetrahyrocannabinol (THC) concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis.” 

 

Applicant should note that by adopting the following ID amendment proposals the applicant may overcome the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) Compliance Advisory.  However, applicant may still be subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) refusal for the applicant’s goods/services.

 

Applicant may adopt one of the following limitations and amend the identification of goods/services accordingly, if accurate (changes highlighted in bold italic):

 

International Class 5:

 

Nutritional supplements consisting primarily of cannabidiol (CBD) being solely derived from hemp with a delta-9 tetrahyrocannabinol (THC) concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis

 

International Class 30:

 

Chocolate bars; Chocolates containing nutrients; Gummy candies; all of the foregoing containing ingredients solely derived from hemp with a delta-9 tetrahyrocannabinol (THC) concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis

 

 

Applicant is advised that failure to amend the identification of goods/services will be grounds for refusal on the basis that the mark, as used/intended to be used in connection with the identified goods/services, is not lawful use in commerce under the CSA.  Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1127; see TMEP §907.  

 

SCOPE ADVISORY

 

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 guidelines.  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.

 

If applicant does not timely respond to this Office action, the following classes will be deleted from the application:  Classes 5, 30, and 34.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.65(a); TMEP §718.02(a). 

 

In such case, the application will then proceed with the following class only:  Class 25.  See TMEP §718.02(a). 

 

 

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

 

 

Alexandra Foster

/Alexandra Foster/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 117

(571) 272-5111

alexandra.foster1@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 July 14, 2020 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88486768

 

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. 

 

 

Alexandra Foster

/Alexandra Foster/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 117

(571) 272-5111

alexandra.foster1@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 July 14, 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.”