Suspension Letter

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application

 

 

 

SUSPENSION NOTICE

No Response Required

 

 

Issue date:  December 03, 2019

 

PREVIOUS ACTIONS: In a previous Office action dated October 8, 2019, the trademark examining attorney refused registration based on the following: Partial Trademark Act Section 2(d) refusal, finding the applied-for mark confusingly similar with the marks in registration Reg. Nos. 5020915 and 5020916.  In addition, applicant was required to satisfy the following requirements:  amend the identification of goods and amend the description of the mark.  Additionally, applicant previously was provided information regarding pending U.S. Application Serial No. 88380212, which may present a bar to registration of applicant’s mark based on a likelihood of confusion under Trademark Act Section 2(d).  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); 37 C.F.R. §2.83; TMEP §§1208 et seq.

 

The cited prior-pending mark in Application No. 88380212 is still pending.

 

 

 

Applicant filed a Response on October 23, 2019 and offered arguments in support of registration. 

 

 

Based on applicant’s response, the trademark examining attorney notes that the following requirement has been satisfied: requirement to amend the description of the mark.  See TMEP §§713.02, 714.04.

 

 

Further, applicant’s arguments have been carefully considered but found unpersuasive for the reasons set forth below.  Additionally, applicant did not amend the identification of goods as proposed.  Therefore, the partial Trademark Act Section 2(d) Refusal and requirement to amend the identification of goods are continued and maintained.  Further, action on this application is SUSPENDED pending disposition of the potentially-conflicting pending application in U.S. Serial No. 86706212.  37 C.F.R. §2.83(c); TMEP §§716.02(c), 1208.02(c).

 

 

REFUSALS AND REQUIREMENT CONTINUED AND MAINTAINED

 

• Partial Trademark Act 2(d) Refusal Continued and Maintained
• Requirement to Amend Identification of Goods Continued and Maintained

 

PARTIAL TRADEMARK ACT 2(d) REFUSAL CONTINUED AND MAINTAINED

 

Registration previously was refused partially because applicant’s mark is likely to be confused with the marks in Reg. Nos. 5020915 and 5020916.  In addition, applicant previously was provided information regarding pending U.S. Application Serial No. 88380212, which may present a bar to registration of applicant’s mark based on a likelihood of confusion under Trademark Act Section 2(d).  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); 37 C.F.R. §2.83; TMEP §§1208 et seq.

 

 

In its Response, applicant argued the applied-for mark is not likely to be confused with the marks in the cited registrations and application.  However, applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive.  First, it is not necessary for the marks to be identical in order to find a likelihood of confusion.  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 marks are confusingly similar because similar terms and phases appear in the compared marks and create a similar overall commercial impression.

 

Further, applicant should note that 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).

 

 

In the response, applicant also maintains that the parties’ goods are not related because they differ (specifically, applicant contends the goods it provides are not in Class 34).  However, the fact that the goods of the parties may differ is not controlling in determining likelihood of confusion.  The issue is not likelihood of confusion between particular goods, but likelihood of confusion as to the source or sponsorship of those goods.  In re Majestic Distilling Co., 315 F.3d 1311, 1316, 65 USPQ2d 1201, 1205 (Fed. Cir. 2003); In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1208, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 1993); TMEP §1207.01.

 

The compared goods and/or services 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).

 

In this case, applicant’s goods are related to registrant’s goods because the circumstances surrounding their marketing are such that they could give rise to the mistaken belief that the goods emanate from the same source.  Accordingly, applicant’s goods are sufficiently related to the goods in the cited registration and application for purposes of the likelihood of confusion analysis.

 

The trademark examining attorney has found applicant’s arguments unpersuasive and still believes there may be a likelihood of confusion between applicant’s mark and the cited registrations and application. 

 

 

REQUIREMENT TO AMEND IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS CONTINUED AND MAINTAINED

 

 

Applicant previously was required to clarify the wording “electronic vaporizers for aromatherapy purposes” in the identification of goods and/or services in International Class 10 because it is indefinite and too broad.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03.  As set forth in the previous action, this wording is indefinite because the nature of the vaporizers is not clear.  Vaporizers are classified according to their purpose or function.  Thus, this wording could identify goods in more than one international class.  For example, “electric vaporizers for medical aromatherapy purposes” are in International Class 10, “electric vaporizers for household aromatherapy purposes” are in International Class 11, “electric vaporizers for non-medical aromatherapy purposes” are in International Class 21 and “electric smokers’ oral vaporizers for aromatherapy purposes” are in International Class 34.  Therefore, applicant must amend the identification to clarify the nature of the vaporizers it provides and ensure proper classification.

 

In the response, applicant maintains that the same descriptors, that is, the identifications found indefinite in the prior action, previously have been approved.  However, prior decisions and actions of other trademark examining attorneys in registering other marks have little evidentiary value and are not binding upon the USPTO or the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.  TMEP §1207.01(d)(vi); see In re USA Warriors Ice Hockey Program, Inc., 122 USPQ2d 1790, 1793 n.10 (TTAB 2017).  Each case is decided on its own facts, and each mark stands on its own merits.  In re USA Warriors Ice Hockey Program, Inc., 122 USPQ2d at 1793 n.10 (quoting In re Boulevard Entm’t, 334 F.3d 1336, 1343, 67 USPQ2d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 2003)).

 

 

Moreover, the Trademark Act requires that a trademark or service mark application must include a “specification of … the goods [or services]” in connection with which the mark is being used or will be used.  15 U.S.C. §1051(a)(2) (emphasis added), (b)(2) (emphasis added); see 15 U.S.C. §1053.  Specifically, a complete application must include a “list of the particular goods or services on or in connection with which the applicant uses or intends to use the mark.”  37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6) (emphasis added).  This requirement for a specification of the particular goods and/or services applies to applications filed under all statutory bases.  See 15 U.S.C. §§1051(a)(2), 1051(b)(2), 1053, 1126(d)-(e), 1141f; 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.01(b)-(c).

 

Further, the USPTO has the discretion to determine the degree of particularity needed to clearly identify goods and/or services covered by a mark.  In re Fiat Grp. Mktg. & Corp. Commc’ns S.p.A, 109 USPQ2d 1593, 1597 (TTAB 2014) (citing In re Omega SA, 494 F.3d 1362, 1365, 83 USPQ2d 1541, 1543-44 (Fed. Cir. 2007)).  Accordingly, the USPTO requires the description of goods and/or services in a U.S. application to be specific, definite, clear, accurate, and concise.  TMEP §1402.01; see In re Fiat Grp. Mktg. & Corp. Commc’ns S.p.A, 109 USPQ2d at 1597-98; Cal. Spray-Chem. Corp. v. Osmose Wood Pres. Co. of Am., 102 USPQ 321, 322 (Comm’r Pats. 1954).    As such, applicant must amend the identification to clarify the nature of the vaporizers it provides and ensure proper classification.

 

Applicant may substitute the following wording, if accurate (proposed amendments in bold):

International Class 10: Electric vaporizers for {specify purpose of vaporizers, e.g., medical}  aromatherapy purposes; Structural parts for electronic vaporizers for {specify purpose of vaporizers, e.g., medical} aromatherapy purposes, namely, atomizers, electronic vaporizer caps, vaporizer refill cartridges sold empty, clearomizers, coils, cones, drip tips, tanks, glass hydro mouthpieces and stems; Refilling tools for electronic vaporizers for medical aromatherapy purposes, namely, eye droppers for liquid that is vaporizable for aromatherapy purposes, {specify nature of syringes, e.g., medical, disposable} syringes for liquid that is vaporizable for aromatherapy purposes; Cartomizers, namely, combination electronic vaporizer refill cartridges sold empty and atomizers, sold as a component of electronic vaporizers for {specify purpose of vaporizers, e.g., medical} purposes; Cases for electronic vaporizers for {specify purpose of vaporizers, e.g., medical} aromatherapy  purposes; Kits for electronic vaporizers for {specify purpose of vaporizers, e.g., medical} aromatherapy purposes comprising electronic vaporizers for {specify purpose of vaporizers, e.g., medical} aromatherapy purposes and refill cartridges for electronic vaporizers for {specify purpose of vaporizers, e.g., medical} aromatherapy purposes sold empty

 

International Class 11: Electric vaporizers for {specify purpose of vaporizers, e.g., household} aromatherapy purposes; Structural parts for electronic vaporizers for {specify purpose of vaporizers, e.g., household; non-medical} aromatherapy purposes, namely, atomizers, electronic vaporizer caps, vaporizer refill cartridges sold empty, clearomizers, coils, cones, drip tips, tanks, glass hydro mouthpieces and stems; Refilling tools for electronic vaporizers for non-medical aromatherapy purposes, namely, eye droppers for liquid that is vaporizable for aromatherapy purposes, {specify nature of syringes, e.g., medical, disposable} syringes for liquid that is vaporizable for aromatherapy purposes; Cartomizers for {specify purpose of cartomizers, e.g., non-medical aromatherapy purposes}, namely, combination electronic vaporizer refill cartridges sold empty and atomizers, sold as a component of electronic vaporizers for {specify purpose of vaporizers, e.g., household} purposes; Cases for electronic vaporizers for {specify purpose of vaporizers, e.g., household; non-medical} aromatherapy  purposes; Kits for electronic vaporizers for {specify purpose of vaporizers, e.g., household; non-medicak} aromatherapy purposes comprising electronic vaporizers for {specify purpose of vaporizers, e.g., household; non-medical} aromatherapy purposes and refill cartridges for electronic vaporizers for {specify purpose of vaporizers, e.g., household; non-medical}  aromatherapy purposes sold empty

 

International Class 21: Electric vaporizers for {specify purpose of vaporizers, e.g., non-medical} aromatherapy purposes

International Class 34: Electric {specify purpose of vaporizers, e.g., smokers’ oral vaporizers} for aromatherapy purposes; Structural parts for electronic {specify purpose of vaporizers, e.g., smokers’ oral vaporizers} for  aromatherapy purposes, namely, atomizers, electronic vaporizer caps, vaporizer refill cartridges sold empty, clearomizers, coils, cones, drip tips, tanks, glass hydro mouthpieces and stems; Refilling tools for electronic vaporizers for aromatherapy purposes, namely, eye droppers for liquid that is vaporizable for aromatherapy purposes, {specify nature of syringes, e.g., medical, disposable} syringes for liquid that is vaporizable for aromatherapy purposes; Cartomizers, namely, combination electronic vaporizer refill cartridges sold empty and atomizers, sold as a component of electronic {specify purpose of vaporizers, e.g., smokers’ oral vaporizers}; Cases for electronic {specify purpose of vaporizers, e.g., smokers’ oral vaporizers} for aromatherapy  purposes; Kits for electronic {specify purpose of vaporizers, e.g., smokers’ oral vaporizers} for aromatherapy purposes comprising electronic {specify purpose of vaporizers, e.g., smokers’ oral vaporizers}  for {aromatherapy purposes and refill cartridges for electronic {specify purpose of vaporizers, e.g., smokers’ oral vaporizers}  for aromatherapy purposes sold empty

 

Applicant may amend the identification to clarify or limit the goods and/or services, but not to broaden or expand the goods and/or services beyond those in the original application or as acceptably amended.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06.  Generally, any deleted goods and/or services may not later be reinserted.  See TMEP §1402.07(e).

 

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.

 

 

Applicant should note that the refusals and requirement will be made final once this application is removed from suspension, unless a new issue arises.  See TMEP §716.01.

 

 

 

Suspension process.  The USPTO will periodically check this application to determine if it should remain suspended.  See TMEP §716.04.  As needed, the trademark examining attorney will issue a letter to applicant to inquire about the status of the reason for the suspension.  TMEP §716.05. 

 

No response required.  Applicant may file a response, but is not required to do so. 

 

 

/Oreoluwa Alao/

Oreoluwa Alao

Examining Attorney

Law Office 108

(571) 270-7210

oreoluwa.alao@uspto.gov

 

 

 

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

 

USPTO OFFICIAL NOTICE

 

Office Action (Official Letter) has issued

on December 03, 2019 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88516978

 

Your trademark application has been reviewed by a trademark examining attorney.  As part of that review, the assigned attorney has issued an official letter.  Please follow the steps below.

 

(1)  Read the official letter.  No response is necessary.

 

(2)  Direct questions about the contents of the Office action to the assigned attorney below. 

 

/Oreoluwa Alao/

Oreoluwa Alao

Examining Attorney

Law Office 108

(571) 270-7210

oreoluwa.alao@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).

 

 

 

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.”