To: | MEET HEAD BRANDS, LLC (keithetaber@gmail.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88490571 - TRANSFORM - MEET-T007US |
Sent: | April 16, 2020 03:23:38 PM |
Sent As: | ecom123@uspto.gov |
Attachments: |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88490571
Mark: TRANSFORM
|
|
Correspondence Address:
|
|
Applicant: MEET HEAD BRANDS, LLC
|
|
Reference/Docket No. MEET-T007US
Correspondence Email Address: |
|
FINAL 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) 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: April 16, 2020
INTRODUCTION
This Office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on March 23, 2020.
In a previous Office action dated September 21, 2019, the trademark examining attorney refused registration of the applied-for mark based on the following: Section 2(d) refusal – likelihood of confusion.
SUMMARY OF ISSUES MADE FINAL that applicant must address:
SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
Refusal to register the applied-for mark because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 5383732 is hereby maintained and made FINAL. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the previously attached registration.
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.
The applied-for mark is “TRANSFORM” for “Dietary supplements” in international class 5.
U.S. Registration No. 5383732 is for the mark “TRANS4ORM” and is used in connection with “Dietary supplement drink mixes; Dietary supplements; Nutritional supplements; Dieting pills and powder preparations to promote fat burning; Pharmaceutical agents affecting metabolism; Powdered nutritional supplement drink mix” in international class 5.
Comparison 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).
In this case, applicant’s mark, “TRANSFORM”, is confusingly similar to registrant’s mark, “TRANS4ORM”, because the marks are highly similar in sound, appearance, connotation, and commercial impression.
The only difference between the marks is that the registered mark contains the number “4” whereas the applied for mark contains the letter “F”. This does not obviate the similarity between the marks because the marks are essentially phonetic equivalents and thus sound similar. Similarity in sound alone may be sufficient to support a finding that the marks are confusingly similar. In re White Swan Ltd., 8 USPQ2d 1534, 1535 (TTAB 1988); see In re 1st USA Realty Prof’ls, Inc. , 84 USPQ2d 1581, 1586 (TTAB 2007); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iv). See previously attached evidence from http://www.webopedia.com/quick_ref/textmessageabbreviations.asp and http://www.smart-words.org/abbreviations/text.html
Ultimately, applicant’s mark is likely to cause confusion with the registered mark because the similarities in sound, appearance, and connotation create the same overall commercial impression in the minds of consumers. Thus the marks are confusingly similar.
Comparison of the Goods
In this case, the goods in the application and registration are identical. Both marks are used in connection with “dietary supplements”. 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)). Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods and/or services are related.
Consideration of Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant argues that the marks are different because of the registrant’s use of the number 4. This does not obviate the similarity between the marks because 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, the “4” in the registrant’s mark does not alter the commercial impression significantly enough to overcome the shared similarities.
Applicant argues that a google search of the registration has no mention of the mark. However, a trademark or service mark registration on the Principal Register is prima facie evidence of the validity of the registration and the registrant’s exclusive right to use the mark in commerce in connection with the specified goods and/or services. See 15 U.S.C. §1057(b); TMEP §1207.01(d)(iv).
Thus, evidence and arguments that constitute a collateral attack on a cited registration, such as information or statements regarding a registrant’s nonuse of its mark, are not relevant during ex parte prosecution. See In re Dixie Rests., 105 F.3d 1405, 1408, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1534-35 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Peebles Inc., 23 USPQ2d 1795, 1797 n.5 (TTAB 1992); TMEP §1207.01(d)(iv). Such evidence and arguments may, however, be pertinent to a formal proceeding before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board to cancel the cited registration.
Applicant argues that the marks have co-existed without any actual confusion. This argument is unpersuasive because “‘[A] showing of actual confusion is not necessary to establish a likelihood of confusion.’” In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1322, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1747 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Herbko Int’l, Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc., 308 F.3d 1156, 1164-65, 64 USPQ2d 1375, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2002)); TMEP §1207.01(d)(ii). “[T]he relevant test is likelihood of confusion, not actual confusion.” In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1309, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (emphasis in original). “Uncorroborated statements of no known instances of actual confusion . . . are of little evidentiary value,” especially in ex parte examination. In re Majestic Distilling Co., 315 F.3d 1311, 1317, 65 USPQ2d 1201, 1205 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Accordingly, the goods of applicant and the registrant are considered related for purposes of the likelihood of confusion analysis.
Therefore, upon encountering “TRANSFORM” and “TRANS4ORM” used on the identified goods, consumers are likely to be confused and mistakenly believe that the respective goods emanate from a common source. Accordingly, refusal to register the applied-for mark because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 5383732 is hereby maintained and made FINAL. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.
Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal(s) by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.
How to respond. Click to file a request for reconsideration of this final Office action that fully resolves all outstanding requirements and refusals and/or click to file a timely appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) with the required filing fee(s).
ASSISTANCE
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.
/Odette Martins/
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 123
(571) 270-0122
odette.martins@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE