To: | Annovative Technology Inc. (hding@annovativetech.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88512333 - ANNOVA - N/A |
Sent: | September 29, 2019 02:46:03 PM |
Sent As: | ecom108@uspto.gov |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 Attachment - 5 Attachment - 6 Attachment - 7 Attachment - 8 Attachment - 9 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88512333
Mark: ANNOVA
|
|
Correspondence Address: 6131 ORANGETHORPE AVE, STE 170 N
|
|
Applicant: Annovative Technology Inc.
|
|
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 29, 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 “ANNOVA” for:
IC 8. Flatware, namely, forks, knives, and spoons; Hand tools, namely, hammers; Hand tools, namely, levers; Hand tools, namely, punches; Kitchen knives; Biodegradable cutlery, namely, knives, forks and spoons; Boxes specially adapted for the storage of cutlery and flatware; Compostable and biodegradable cutlery, namely, knives, spoons, forks; Forks being tableware; Hand tools for repair and maintenance of bicycles; Knives being tableware; Plastic cutlery, namely, knives, forks, and spoons; Scissors for kitchen use; Spoons being tableware; Table cutlery
IC 16. Art prints; Artists' brushes; Canvas for printing; Easels; Globes; Maps; Notebooks; Pen and pencil cases; Pen holders; Pens; Stationery; Calendar stands; Celestial globes; Coloured pens; Desktop organizers; Desktop document file stands; Office stationery; Organizers for stationery use; Paintbrush rests; Painting palettes; Paper hole punches; Pen rests; Terrestrial globes
IC 21. Bottle openers, electric and non-electric; Chopstick cases; Chopstick rests; Chopsticks; Coffee pots; Coffee cups; Coffee mugs; Coffee pod holders; Coffee servers; Coffee services of ceramic; Coffee stirrers; Containers for household or kitchen use; Containers for ice; Japanese rice bowls (chawan); Kitchen containers; Kitchen mitts; Sushi rolling mats; Cake rests; Cake stands; Cutting boards for the kitchen; Dish stands; Disposable chopsticks; Hand-operated grinders; Household containers for foods; Knife rests; Non-electric coffee dripper for brewing coffee; Pepper grinders; Portable beverage container holder; Pour-over coffee stands; Spatulas for kitchen use; Training chopsticks; Trash containers for household use.
The cited registration is “INNOVA” (U.S. Registration No. 4916487) for:
IC 8. Spreader in the nature of a small knife for butter or cheese; kitchen knives
IC 21. Household utensils, namely, turners, spatulas, scrapers and spreaders.
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.
Comparing 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).
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).
There is no correct pronunciation of a mark because it is impossible to predict how the public will pronounce a particular mark. See Embarcadero Techs., Inc. v. RStudio, Inc., 105 USPQ2d 1825, 1835 (TTAB 2013) (quoting In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1367, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1912 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re The Belgrade Shoe Co., 411 F.2d 1352, 1353, 162 USPQ 227, 227 (C.C.P.A. 1969)); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iv). The marks in question could clearly be pronounced the same; such 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).
Therefore, the marks are confusingly similar.
Comparing the Goods
The goods 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).
In this case, the application uses broad wording to describe “Flatware, namely, forks, knives, and spoons; Hand tools, namely, hammers; Hand tools, namely, levers; Hand tools, namely, punches; Kitchen knives; Biodegradable cutlery, namely, knives, forks and spoons; Boxes specially adapted for the storage of cutlery and flatware; Compostable and biodegradable cutlery, namely, knives, spoons, forks; Forks being tableware; Hand tools for repair and maintenance of bicycles; Knives being tableware; Plastic cutlery, namely, knives, forks, and spoons; Scissors for kitchen use; Spoons being tableware; Table cutlery,” and “Bottle openers, electric and non-electric; Chopstick cases; Chopstick rests; Chopsticks; Coffee pots; Coffee cups; Coffee mugs; Coffee pod holders; Coffee servers; Coffee services of ceramic; Coffee stirrers; Containers for household or kitchen use; Containers for ice; Japanese rice bowls (chawan); Kitchen containers; Kitchen mitts; Sushi rolling mats; Cake rests; Cake stands; Cutting boards for the kitchen; Dish stands; Disposable chopsticks; Hand-operated grinders; Household containers for foods; Knife rests; Non-electric coffee dripper for brewing coffee; Pepper grinders; Portable beverage container holder; Pour-over coffee stands; Spatulas for kitchen use; Training chopsticks; Trash containers for household use,” which presumably encompasses all goods and/or services of the type described, including registrant’s more narrow “Spreader in the nature of a small knife for butter or cheese; kitchen knives,” and “Household utensils, namely, turners, spatulas, scrapers and spreaders.” 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)).
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)). Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods are related.
Accordingly, the applicant’s proposed mark, ANNOVA, is refused for likelihood of confusion under Trademark Act Section 2(d).
NOTICE OF PRIOR PENDING APPLICATION
In response to this Office action, applicant may present arguments in support of registration by addressing the issue of the potential conflict between applicant’s mark and the mark in the referenced application. Applicant’s election not to submit arguments at this time in no way limits applicant’s right to address this issue later if a refusal under Section 2(d) issues.
EXPLANATION OF MARK’S SIGNIFICANCE REQUIRED
Applicant must explain whether “ANNOVA” has any meaning or significance in the industry in which the goods and/or services are manufactured/provided, or if such wording is a “term of art” within applicant’s industry. See 37 C.F.R. §2.61(b); TMEP §814. Applicant must also explain whether this wording identifies a geographic place or has any meaning in a foreign language. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.32(a)(9), (a)(10), 2.61(b); TMEP §§809, 814. An applicant must submit an English translation of all foreign wording in a mark and a transliteration (the phonetic spelling, in Latin characters, of terms in the mark in non-Latin characters) of all non-Latin characters in a mark. 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(9), (a)(10); TMEP §809. If the wording does not have meaning in a foreign language, applicant should so specify. See 37 C.F.R. §2.61(b); TMEP §809.03.
Failure to respond to a request for information is an additional ground for refusing registration. See In re Cheezwhse.com, Inc., 85 USPQ2d 1917, 1919 (TTAB 2008); In re DTI P’ship LLP, 67 USPQ2d 1699, 1701 (TTAB 2003); TMEP §814.
If an applicant is represented by a U.S.-licensed attorney authorized to practice before the USPTO, the attorney must sign the response. 37 C.F.R. §2.193(e)(2)(i); TMEP §§611.03(b), 712.01. The only attorneys who may sign responses are (1) attorneys in good standing with a bar of the highest court of any U.S. state or territory, or (2) Canadian trademark attorneys or agents reciprocally recognized by the USPTO’s Office of Enrollment and Discipline (OED) who are appointed in connection with a U.S.-licensed attorney. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.17(a), 11.14(a), (c), (e). Foreign attorneys, other than recognized Canadian trademark attorneys or agents, do not have authority to sign responses. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.17(e), 11.14(c)(1), (e).
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
/Michael Ebaugh/
Examining Attorney
Law Office 108
(571) 270-3341
michael.ebaugh@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE