United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88489841
Mark: READY SWEET
|
|
Correspondence Address: 8950 W. OLYMPIC BOULEVARD, SUITE 382
|
|
Applicant: Harris Tea Company, LLC
|
|
Reference/Docket No. HFCO
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 17, 2019
SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 5675407. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the attached registration.
Applicant has applied to register the mark “READY SWEET” in standard characters for use in connection with “tea, tea bags and ready to drink tea” in International Class 030. Registrant’s mark is “SWEET N READY” in standard characters for use in connection with “Concentrates, syrups or powders for making soft drinks or tea-flavored beverages” in International Class 032.
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). 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 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.
a. 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)); TMEP §1207.01(b).
Marks may be confusingly similar in appearance where similar terms or phrases or similar parts of terms or phrases appear in the compared marks and create a similar overall commercial impression. See Crocker Nat’l Bank v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 228 USPQ 689, 690-91 (TTAB 1986), aff’d sub nom. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 811 F.2d 1490, 1495, 1 USPQ2d 1813, 1817 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (finding COMMCASH and COMMUNICASH confusingly similar); In re Corning Glass Works, 229 USPQ 65, 66 (TTAB 1985) (finding CONFIRM and CONFIRMCELLS confusingly similar); In re Pellerin Milnor Corp., 221 USPQ 558, 560 (TTAB 1983) (finding MILTRON and MILLTRONICS confusingly similar); TMEP §1207.01(b)(ii)-(iii). In this case, registrant’s mark contains the more distinctive wording “READY” and “SWEET” and applicant’s mark solely contains the wording “READY” and “SWEET.
Consumer confusion has been held likely for marks that do not physically sound or look alike but that convey the same idea, stimulate the same mental reaction, or may have the same overall meaning. Proctor & Gamble Co. v. Conway, 419 F.2d 1332, 1336, 164 USPQ 301, 304 (C.C.P.A. 1970) (holding MISTER STAIN likely to be confused with MR. CLEAN on competing cleaning products); see In re M. Serman & Co., 223 USPQ 52, 53 (TTAB 1984) (holding CITY WOMAN for ladies’ blouses likely to be confused with CITY GIRL for a variety of female clothing); H. Sichel Sohne, GmbH v. John Gross & Co., 204 USPQ 257, 260-61 (TTAB 1979) (holding BLUE NUN for wines likely to be confused with BLUE CHAPEL for the same goods); Ralston Purina Co. v. Old Ranchers Canning Co., 199 USPQ 125, 128 (TTAB 1978) (holding TUNA O’ THE FARM for canned chicken likely to be confused with CHICKEN OF THE SEA for canned tuna); Downtowner Corp. v. Uptowner Inns, Inc., 178 USPQ 105, 109 (TTAB 1973) (holding UPTOWNER for motor inn and restaurant services likely to be confused with DOWNTOWNER for the same services); TMEP §1207.01(b). Although registrant’s mark and applicant’s mark do not physically sound or look alike, they convey the same idea, stimulate the same mental reaction, and have the same overall meaning, namely, that the beverage products are ready and sweet.
Therefore, the marks are confusingly similar.
b. Relatedness of the Goods
Here, applicant’s goods are “tea, tea bags and ready to drink tea” in International Class 030 and registrant’s goods are “Concentrates, syrups or powders for making soft drinks or tea-flavored beverages” in International Class 032.
The attached internet evidence shows third parties that manufacture the goods at issue under the same name, and provide and sell the goods at issue in the same store. See attached. For example:
1. Lipton manufactures and sells powders for making tea-flavored beverages, tea/tea bags, and ready to drink tea
2. Nestea manufactures and sells powders for making tea-flavored beverages, tea/tea bags, and ready to drink tea
3. Tazo manufactures and sells concentrates for making tea-flavored beverages, tea/tea bags, and ready to drink tea
For the above reasons, the applied-for mark is refused registration under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act for likelihood of confusion with the cited registered mark.
SECTION 2(e)(1) REFUSAL - MERELY DESCRIPTIVE
In this case, the applied-for mark is “READY SWEET” used in connection with “tea, tea bags and ready to drink tea”. The attached evidence from American Heritage Dictionary shows that “READY” means “prepared or available for service, action, or progress” and “SWEET” means “having the taste of sugar or a substance containing or resembling sugar”. Therefore, the combination of the terms “READY SWEET” immediately conveys to consumers that applicant’s goods involve beverages that are already sweetened and ready to drink.
Only where the combination of descriptive terms creates a unitary mark with a unique, incongruous, or otherwise nondescriptive meaning in relation to the goods is the combined mark registrable. See In re Colonial Stores, Inc., 394 F.2d 549, 551, 157 USPQ 382, 384 (C.C.P.A. 1968); In re Positec Grp. Ltd., 108 USPQ2d 1161, 1162-63 (TTAB 2013).
As demonstrated above, the descriptive terms “READY” and “SWEET” is understood to convey a very specific characteristic of products; therefore, the applied-for mark “READY SWEET” will immediately convey to consumers that applicant’s goods involve beverages that are already sweetened and ready to drink. Considering the above, the applied-for mark is refused registration under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1).
Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusals by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.
SUPPLEMENTAL REGISTER ADVISORY
(1) STATEMENTS: The following statements: “The applicant is the owner of the mark sought to be registered.” and “The applicant is using the mark in commerce on or in connection with all the goods/services in the application or notice of allowance, or as subsequently modified.”
(2) DATES OF FIRST USE: The date of first use of the mark anywhereon or in connection with the goods and/or services, and the date of first use of the mark in commerceas a trademark or service mark. See more information about dates of use.
(3) GOODS AND/OR SERVICES: The goods and/or services specified in the application.
(4) SPECIMEN: A specimen showing how applicant uses the mark in commerce for each class of goods and/or services for which use is being asserted. If a single specimen supports multiple classes, applicant should indicate which classes the specimen supports rather than providing multiple copies of the same specimen. See more information about specimens.
(5) FEE(S): A filing fee for each international class of goods and/or services for which use is being asserted (find current fee information).
(6) VERIFICATION: Verification of (1) through (4) above in an affidavit or signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20. See more information about verification.
See 37 C.F.R. §2.76(b); TMEP §1104.08.
An amendment to allege use may be filed online via the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS). Filing an amendment to allege use is not considered a response to an Office action. 37 C.F.R. §2.76(h); TMEP §1104. An applicant must file a separate response to any outstanding Office action. TMEP §1104; see 37 C.F.R. §2.76(h).
RESPONSE GUIDELINES
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
Arriola, Kimberly
/Kimberly C. Arriola/
Attorney Advisor
Law Office 128
(571) 270-7984
kimberly.arriola@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE