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:  September 12, 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.

 

SEARCH PARAGRAPHS

 

The trademark examining attorney has searched the Office’s database of registered and pending marks and has found no conflicting marks that would bar registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d).  TMEP §704.02; see 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).

 

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. 4809514, for the mark LAGUNA.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registration.

 

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.

 

In this case, the applicant seeks to register the mark LUGANO for pesticides, fungicides, insecticides, herbicides and adjuvants.  The registered mark is LAGUNA for pesticides for agricultural use.  Here the marks are similar in commercial impression and for related and identical goods.

 

With respect to the commercial impressions, 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).

 

In this case, when the marks are compared, the marks are similar in appearance and very similar in sound.  Slight differences in the sound of similar marks will not avoid a likelihood of confusion.  In re Energy Telecomm. & Elec. Ass’n, 222 USPQ 350, 351 (TTAB 1983); see In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1367, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1912 (Fed. Cir. 2012).

 

With respect to the goods, the compared goods need not be identical or even competitive to find a likelihood of confusion.  See On-line Careline Inc. v. Am. Online Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 1086, 56 USPQ2d 1471, 1475 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Recot, Inc. v. Becton, 214 F.3d 1322, 1329, 54 USPQ2d 1894, 1898 (Fed. Cir. 2000); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).  They need only be “related in some manner and/or if the circumstances surrounding their marketing are such that they could give rise to the mistaken belief that [the goods and/or services] emanate from the same source.”  Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1369, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1722 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting 7-Eleven Inc. v. Wechsler, 83 USPQ2d 1715, 1724 (TTAB 2007)); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).

 

When analyzing an applicant’s and registrant’s goods for similarity and relatedness, that determination is based on the description of the goods in the application and registration at issue, not on extrinsic evidence of actual use.  See Stone Lion Capital Partners, LP v. Lion Capital LLP, 746 F.3d 1317, 1323, 110 USPQ2d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Octocom Sys. Inc. v. Hous. Computers Servs. Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 942, 16 USPQ2d 1783, 1787 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). 

 

In this case, the goods in the application and registration(s) are identical.  Therefore, it is presumed that the channels of trade and class(es) of purchasers are the same for these goods and/or services.  See Cai v. Diamond Hong, Inc., __ F.3d __, 27 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.  

 

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/or services as those of both applicant and registrant in this case.  This evidence shows that the goods and/or services listed therein, namely pesticides, fungicides, and insecticides 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).

 

Applicant should note the following additional ground for refusal.

 

SECTION 2(e)(2) REFUSAL – PRIMARILY GEOGRAPHICALLY  DESCRIPTIVE

Registration is refused because the applied-for mark is primarily geographically descriptive of the origin of applicant’s goods and/or services.  Trademark Act Section 2(e)(2), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(2); see TMEP §§1210, 1210.01(a).

 

A mark is primarily geographically descriptive when the following is demonstrated:

 

(1) The primary significance of the mark is a generally known geographic place or location;

 

(2) The goods and/or services for which applicant seeks registration originate in the geographic place identified in the mark; and

 

(3) Purchasers would be likely to make a goods-place or services-place association; that is, purchasers would be likely to believe that the goods and/or services originate in the geographic place identified in the mark.

 

TMEP §1210.01(a); see In re Societe Generale des Eaux Minerales de Vittel S.A., 824 F.2d 957, 959, 3 USPQ2d 1450, 1452 (Fed. Cir. 1987); In re Hollywood Lawyers Online, 110 USPQ2d 1852, 1853 (TTAB 2014).

 

If the most prominent meaning or significance of a mark is geographic for the goods and/or services in the application, the fact that the mark may have other meanings in other contexts does not alter its geographic significance in the context of the application.  See In re Opryland USA Inc., 1 USPQ2d 1409, 1412-13 (TTAB 1986) (holding the mark THE NASHVILLE NETWORK primarily geographically descriptive of television program production and distribution services when finding that the primary significance of the term referred to Nashville, Tennessee and not that of a style of music); In re Cookie Kitchen, Inc., 228 USPQ 873, 874 (TTAB 1986) (noting that where MANHATTAN refers to a type of cocktail and to a geographic location that having an alternative meaning does not alter the mark’s primary geographic significance in the context of the goods in the application); In re Jack’s Hi-Grade Foods, Inc., 226 USPQ 1028, 1029 (TTAB 1985) (noting that where NEAPOLITAN refers to a type of ice cream and also means “pertaining to Naples, Italy” that having an alternative meaning does not alter the mark’s primary geographic significance in the context of the goods in the application); TMEP §1210.02(b)(i).

 

Furthermore, to establish a goods-place or services-place association, the evidence need only show a “reasonable basis” for concluding that the public is likely to believe that the mark identifies the place from which the goods and/or services originate.  See In re JT Tobacconists, 59 USPQ2d 1080, 1083-84 (TTAB 2001) (finding that nothing in the record suggested that it would be incongruous or unexpected for the purchasing public to believe that applicant’s cigars, cigar cases and humidors, “manufactured products which could have their origin practically anywhere,” came from the place named in the mark, as applicant was located in the place and the goods were packaged and shipped from the location, such that consumers would have a reasonable basis to believe the goods came from the place named in the mark); In re Cambridge Digital Sys., 1 USPQ2d 1659, 1661-62 (TTAB 1986) (finding that the location named in the mark was renowned for educational institutions and the record demonstrated the location was a manufacturing and commercial center producing related goods such that purchasers of applicant’s goods would reasonably believe they emanate from the place named in the mark); see also TMEP §1210.04; cf. In re Loew’s Theatres, Inc., 769 F.2d 764, 767-68, 226 USPQ 865, 867-68 (Fed. Cir. 1985).

 

In this case, the applicant seeks to register LUGANO for pesticides, fungicides, insecticides, herbicides and adjuvants. The sole and thus most prominent meaning of the word LUGANO is as a geographic term. The attached evidence shows that LUGANO, is geographically descriptive because is merely identifies a geographic location in Switzerland and more specifically, a town near applicant’s location.  Please see the attached evidence.  In addition, there is a reasonable basis to conclude that the public is likely to believe that the mark identifies the place from which the goods originate.  The evidence also show that Switzerland is home to one of the world’s biggest producers of pesticides, fungicides, insecticides, herbicides and adjuvants and applicant, as specified in the application, is located there.  Please see the attached evidence. 

 

Applicant must provide a written statement specifying where the goods and/or services will come from or will originate.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.61(b); TMEP §§814, 1210.03.  Failure to comply with a request for information is grounds for refusing registration.  In re Harley, 119 USPQ2d 1755, 1757-58 (TTAB 2016); TMEP §814.

 

Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal(s) by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration. If applicant responds to the refusal(s), applicant must also respond to the requirement(s) set forth below.

 

IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS

 

The identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified because the wording is overly broad and indefinite because it fails to provide sufficient specificity as to the exact nature of the goods and includes goods that may be properly classified in multiple classes. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01. Applicant must amend the identification to specify the common commercial or generic name of the goods. See TMEP §1402.01. If the goods have no common commercial or generic name, applicant must describe the product, its main purpose, and its intended uses. See id.

 

Applicant may adopt the following wording, if accurate:

 

Class 1

Adjuvants for use with pesticides;

 

Class 5

Pesticides; fungicides; insecticides; herbicides; and adjuvants for medical purposes

 

Applicant’s goods and/or services may be clarified or limited, but may not be expanded beyond those originally itemized in the application or as acceptably amended. See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06. Applicant may clarify or limit the identification by inserting qualifying language or deleting items to result in a more specific identification; however, applicant may not substitute different goods and/or services or add goods and/or services not found or encompassed by those in the original application or as acceptably amended. See TMEP §1402.06(a)-(b). The scope of the goods and/or services sets the outer limit for any changes to the identification and is generally determined by the ordinary meaning of the wording in the identification. TMEP §§1402.06(b), 1402.07(a)-(b). Any acceptable changes to the goods and/or services will further limit scope, and once goods and/or services are deleted, they are not permitted to be reinserted. TMEP §1402.07(e).

 

Descriptions of goods and/or services found acceptable in earlier-filed applications and registrations do not always remain acceptable when adopted in later-filed applications. See TMEP §§702.03(a)(iv), 1402.14. Identifications of goods and/or services are examined in accordance with the Trademark Rules of Practice and the USPTO’s policies and procedures in effect on the date an application is filed (although an applicant may voluntarily choose to follow policies and procedures adopted after the application was filed). See 37 C.F.R. §2.85(e)(1)-(e)(2); TMEP §§1401.09, 1402.14.

 

The USPTO’s rules and policies with respect to identifications of goods and/or services are updated periodically to reflect changes in the marketplace and technology as well as changes to the international classification system. See TMEP §1402.14. For guidance on drafting acceptable identifications of goods and/or services, use the USPTO’s online U.S. Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual (ID Manual), which is continually updated in accordance with prevailing rules and policies. See TMEP §1402.04.

 

For assistance with identifying and classifying goods and services in trademark applications, please see the USPTO’s online searchable U.S. Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual. See TMEP §1402.04.

 

MULTIPLE-CLASS APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS

 

The application identifies goods and/or services in more than one international class; therefore, applicant must satisfy all the requirements below for each international class based on Trademark Act Section 1(b):

 

(1) List the goods and/or services by their international class number in consecutive numerical order, starting with the lowest numbered class.

 

(2) Submit a filing fee for each international class not covered by the fee(s) already paid (view the USPTO’s current fee schedule). The application identifies goods and/or services that are classified in at least 2 classes; however, applicant submitted a fee(s) sufficient for only 1 class(es). Applicant must either submit the filing fees for the classes not covered by the submitted fees or restrict the application to the number of classes covered by the fees already paid.

 

See 15 U.S.C. §§1051(b), 1112, 1126(e); 37 C.F.R. §§2.32(a)(6)-(7), 2.34(a)(2)-(3), 2.86(a); TMEP §§1403.01, 1403.02(c). See an overview of the requirements for a Section 1(b) multiple-class application and how to satisfy the requirements online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form.

 

U.S. COUNSEL ADVISORY

 

Attorney bar information required. Applicant’s attorney must provide the following bar information: (1) his or her bar membership number, if the bar provides one; (2) the name of the U.S. state, commonwealth, or territory of his or her bar membership; and (3) the year of his or her admission to the bar. 37 C.F.R. §2.17(b)(3). This information is required for all U.S.-licensed attorneys who are representing trademark applicants at the USPTO. Id. If the attorney’s bar does not issue bar membership numbers, applicant must state this for the record. See id.

 

To provide bar information. Applicant’s attorney should respond to this Office action by using the appropriate TEAS response form and provide his or her bar information in the “Attorney Information” page of the form, within the bar information section. See 37 C.F.R. §2.17(b)(1)(ii). Bar information provided in any other area of the form will be viewable by the public in USPTO records.

 

Attorney statement required. Applicant’s attorney must provide the following statement: “I am an attorney who is an active member in good standing of the bar of a U.S. state (including the District of Columbia and any U.S. Commonwealth or territory).” See 37 C.F.R. §2.17(b)(3). This is required for all U.S.-licensed attorneys who are representing trademark applicants at the USPTO. Id.

 

CLOSING

 

Please call or email the assigned trademark examining attorney with questions about this Office action. Although the trademark examining attorney cannot provide legal advice or statements about applicant’s rights, the trademark examining attorney can provide applicant with additional explanation about the refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) in this Office action. See TMEP §§705.02, 709.06. Although the USPTO does not accept emails as responses to Office actions, emails can be used for informal communications and will be included in the application record. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(c), 2.191; TMEP §§304.01-.02, 709.04-.05.

 

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  

 

 

/IngridCEulin/

Ingrid C. Eulin

Examining Attorney

Law Office 111

571-272-9380

Ingrid.Eulin@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 September 12, 2019 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88511553

 

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. 

 

 

/IngridCEulin/

Ingrid C. Eulin

Examining Attorney

Law Office 111

571-272-9380

Ingrid.Eulin@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 September 12, 2019, 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.”