| To: | WOODHOT, LLC (gonzalez@thegonzalezlawoffice.com) |
| Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88502721 - WH - N/A |
| Sent: | September 25, 2019 07:05:26 AM |
| Sent As: | ecom108@uspto.gov |
| Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 Attachment - 5 Attachment - 6 Attachment - 7 Attachment - 8 Attachment - 9 Attachment - 10 Attachment - 11 Attachment - 12 Attachment - 13 Attachment - 14 Attachment - 15 Attachment - 16 Attachment - 17 Attachment - 18 Attachment - 19 Attachment - 20 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
|
U.S. Application Serial No. 88502721
Mark: WH
|
|
|
Correspondence Address:
|
|
|
Applicant: WOODHOT, LLC
|
|
|
Reference/Docket No. N/A
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 25, 2019
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.
SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
The applicant has applied to register the mark, WH & design for “Lump charcoal, Wood briquettes, Wood chips for use as fuel, Wood chips for smoking and grilling, Wood heating pellets, Briquettes of wood, Hardwood charcoal for smoking and grilling food, Solid fire starters, Wood chips for smoking foods, and Wood chips of Apple, Alder, Cherry, Beech, Oak, Pecan, Hickory for smoking and grilling”. Registration is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with Registration No. 5426447 for WH-SHOP for, as relevant, “On-line retail store services featuring…household products, housewares,… grilling products”.
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.
Similarity of the Marks
Applicant’s proposed mark, WH & design, is highly similar to Registration No. 5426447, for WH-SHOP because both marks contain the identical initials “WH”. The only differences are registrant’s inclusion of the highly descriptive wording SHOP and applicant’s inclusion of a design.
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).
When comparing marks, “[t]he proper test is not a side-by-side comparison of the marks, but instead whether the marks are sufficiently similar in terms of their commercial impression such that [consumers] who encounter the marks would be likely to assume a connection between the parties.” Cai v. Diamond Hong, Inc., __ F.3d __, 127 USPQ2d 1797, 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1368, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); TMEP §1207.01(b). The proper focus is on the recollection of the average purchaser, who retains a general rather than specific impression of trademarks. In re Inn at St. John’s, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1742, 1746 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re St. Helena Hosp., 774 F.3d 747, 750-51, 113 USPQ2d 1082, 1085 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Geigy Chem. Corp. v. Atlas Chem. Indus., Inc., 438 F.2d 1005, 1007, 169 USPQ 39, 40 (CCPA 1971)); TMEP §1207.01(b).
As stated, here, the applied-for mark and registered mark contain the identical initials “WH”, creating a similar commercial impression. The absence of SHOP in the applied-for mark does not obviate the similarity. Although the wording in applicant’s mark does not contain the entirety of the registered mark, applicant’s mark is likely to appear to prospective purchasers as a shortened form of registrant’s mark. See In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 1348, 94 USPQ2d 1257, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting United States Shoe Corp., 229 USPQ 707, 709 (TTAB 1985)). Thus, merely omitting some of the wording from a registered mark may not overcome a likelihood of confusion. See In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 94 USPQ2d 1257; In re Optica Int’l, 196 USPQ 775, 778 (TTAB 1977); TMEP §1207.01(b)(ii)-(iii). In this case, the wording in applicant’s mark does not create a distinct commercial impression from the registered mark because it contains some of the wording in the registered mark and does not add any wording that would distinguish it from that mark.
Additionally, SHOP in the registered mark is highly descriptive in the case of registrant’s services, which are online retail store services. As demonstrated by the attached definition from The American Heritage Dictionary, SHOP refers to “[a] small retail store”. Thus, SHOP is highly descriptive in the context of registrant’s services, which provide an online retail store for buying goods. Disclaimed matter that is descriptive of or generic for a party’s goods is typically less significant or less dominant when comparing marks. In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1305, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1050 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing In re Dixie Rests., Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 1407, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533-34 (Fed. Cir. 1997)); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii). Thus, “WH” is the more dominant feature of the registered mark that consumers will recall when making purchasing decisions.
Further, applicant’s inclusion of the tree design does not obviate the similarity either. 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)). Moreover, a mark in typed or standard characters 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 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”). Here, the registered mark is in standard characters and may be presented with any design, including that used by applicant.
In sum, given the applied-for mark contains “WH,” which is identical to “WH” in the registered mark, it follows that the marks create a highly similar commercial impression.
Comparison of the Goods and Services
Applicant’s goods are identified as “Lump charcoal, Wood briquettes, Wood chips for use as fuel, Wood chips for smoking and grilling, Wood heating pellets, Briquettes of wood, Hardwood charcoal for smoking and grilling food, Solid fire starters, Wood chips for smoking foods, and Wood chips of Apple, Alder, Cherry, Beech, Oak, Pecan, Hickory for smoking and grilling”.
Registrant’s services, as relevant, are identified as “On-line retail store services featuring…household products, housewares…grilling products”.
Here, applicant’s goods include those for grilling. Registrant’s services include online retail store services featuring grilling products. The use of similar marks on or in connection with both products and retail-store services has been held likely to cause confusion where the evidence showed that the retail-store services featured the same type of products. See In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1307, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1051 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding the use of similar marks for various clothing items, including athletic uniforms, and for retail shops featuring sports team related clothing and apparel likely to cause confusion); In re House Beer, LLC, 114 USPQ2d 1073, 1078 (TTAB 2015) (holding the use of identical marks for beer and for retail store services featuring beer likely to cause confusion); In re Thomas, 79 USPQ2d 1021, 1023 (TTAB 2006) (holding the use of similar marks for jewelry and for retail-jewelry and mineral-store services likely to cause confusion); TMEP §1207.01(a)(ii). Here, consumers are accustomed to seeing providers of goods like applicant also provide online retail store services featuring those goods. See, e.g., http://memphisgrills.com/memphis-wood-fire-grills-premium-barbecue-pellets/, http://jealousdevil.com/, http://www.traegergrills.com/wood-pellets. Accordingly, applicant’s goods are considered related to registrant’s services for likelihood of confusion purposes.
Thus, upon encountering WH & design, used in connection with “Lump charcoal, Wood briquettes, Wood chips for use as fuel, Wood chips for smoking and grilling, Wood heating pellets, Briquettes of wood, Hardwood charcoal for smoking and grilling food, Solid fire starters, Wood chips for smoking foods, and Wood chips of Apple, Alder, Cherry, Beech, Oak, Pecan, Hickory for smoking and grilling” and WH-SHOP, used in connection with “On-line retail store services featuring…household products, housewares…grilling products,” consumers are likely to be confused and mistakenly believe that the respective goods and services emanate from a common source.
Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.
If applicant responds to the refusal, applicant must also respond to the requirement set forth below
Description of the Mark RequireS Amendment
Applicant must submit an amended description of the mark. 37 C.F.R. §2.37; see TMEP §§808.01, 808.02. Applications for marks not in standard characters must include an accurate and concise description of the entire mark that identifies all the literal and design elements. See 37 C.F.R. §2.37; TMEP §§808 et seq. Here, the description of the mark requires amendment to include the line below the tree and wording. The following amended description of the mark is suggested, if accurate:
The mark consists of an image of a tree to the left of the letters “WH” with a single band underneath the tree and wording.
TMEP §807.07(a)(i)
RESPONDING TO THE OFFICE ACTION
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
/Ashley D. Hayes/
Ashley D. Hayes
Examining Attorney
Law Office 108
(571) 272-2826
ashley.hayes@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE
