United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
|
U.S. Application Serial No. 88532542
Mark: MUSE
|
|
|
Correspondence Address: NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP
|
|
|
Applicant: Surterra Holdings, Inc.
|
|
|
Reference/Docket No. 052699/09028
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: October 23, 2019
Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 1804084 and 5843230. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the attached registrations.
Determination of Likelihood of Confusion
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 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. 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 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).
The applicant’s mark is MUSE and the registrant’s mark is MUSE and LA MUSE. The marks of the parties are similar in sound, appearance and meaning.
In the present case, applicant’s mark is MUSE and registrant’s mark is MUSE. These marks are identical in appearance, sound, and meaning, “and have the potential to be used . . . in exactly the same manner.” In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 116 USPQ2d 1406, 1411 (TTAB 2015), aff’d, 866 F.3d 1315, 123 USPQ2d 1744 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Additionally, because they are identical, these marks are likely to engender the same connotation and overall commercial impression when considered in connection with applicant’s and registrant’s respective goods. Id.
Therefore, the marks are confusingly similar.
The second registrant’s mark is LA MUSE. The word LA translates to THE in English. The examining attorney encloses Internet evidence showing the translation of the word LA.
In this case, the dominant part of each party’s mark is the word MUSE. Although marks are compared in their entireties, one feature of a mark may be more significant or dominant in creating a commercial impression. See In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1305, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1050 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing In re Dixie Rests., 105 F.3d 1405, 1407, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533-34 (Fed. Cir. 1997)); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii). Greater weight is often given to this dominant feature when determining whether marks are confusingly similar. See In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d at 1305, 128 USPQ2d at 1050 (citing In re Dixie Rests., 105 F.3d at 1407, 41 USPQ2d at 1533-34).
Therefore, the similarities in the elements that exist are sufficient to fins a likelihood of confusion.
Comparing the Goods/Services
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] 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).
The applicant’s goods are, in pertinent part, “Herbal tinctures for medical purposes; medicated oils; medicated oral sprays; medicated creams and lotions; nutritionally fortified beverages for medicinal purposes” and the registrants’ goods are “pharmaceuticals, formulations and/or delivery platforms to treat, diagnose and/or alleviate erectile dysfunction” and “Anti-aging toner; Body cream; Facial beauty masks; Lip gloss; Mask pack for cosmetic purposes; Non-medicated skin toners; Pore tightening mask packs used as cosmetics; Skin cleansing lotion; Skin moisturizer; Solid powder for compacts.”
In this case, the application uses broad wording to describe “Herbal tinctures for medical purposes; medicated oils; medicated oral sprays; medicated creams and lotions; nutritionally fortified beverages for medicinal purposes”, which presumably encompasses all goods of the type described, including registrant’s more narrow “pharmaceuticals, formulations and/or delivery platforms to treat, diagnose and/or alleviate erectile dysfunction. 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.
The goods of the parties are related, because the applicant’s “herbal tinctures for medical purposes; medicated oils; medicated oral sprays; medicated creams and lotions; nutritionally fortified beverages for medicinal purposes” may be used to treat diagnose and alleviate erectile dysfunction.
The second registrant’s goods are “Anti-aging toner; Body cream; Facial beauty masks; Lip gloss; Mask pack for cosmetic purposes; Non-medicated skin toners; Pore tightening mask packs used as cosmetics; Skin cleansing lotion; Skin moisturizer; Solid powder for compacts.” The examining attorney encloses several prior registrations showing non medicated creams, oils and lotions and medicated creams, oils and lotions offered under the same trademark. In addition, the examining attorney encloses Internet references from GOLD BOND.COM and MERLOTSKINCARE.COM showing medicated and non-medicated skin care products offered by the same entities.
The conditions surrounding the marketing of the goods may be such that they could be encountered by the same purchasers under circumstances that could give rise to the mistaken belief that the goods come from a common source.
Because of the similarities between the marks and the goods of the parties, a likelihood of confusion is created.
Identification of Goods
The wording “medicated oil, medicated oral spray and medicated cream and lotions” in the identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified because it does not specify the medical purpose of the medicated oil, oral spray, cream or lotion. In addition, the wording “Chewable candy confections” and “Electronic vaporizer pens sold empty” is unacceptable as indefinite and overbroad because it does not specify the particular candy or confection offered or the specific type of apparatus or use of the vaporizer pens. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01. Applicant must amend this wording 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.
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.
The identification of goods should be amended to read as follows, if accurate (suggestions in bold):
Herbal tinctures for medical purposes; medicated massage oils; medicated oral sprays for the cessation of smoking; medicated creams and lotions for treating dermatological conditions; nutritionally fortified beverages for medicinal purposes in International Class 5.
And
Chewable candy confections, namely, candy mints, hard candies in International Class 30.
And
Smokers' oral electronic vaporizer refill pen cartridges sold empty in International Class 34.
Prior Pending
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 marks in the referenced applications. 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.
Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal(s) by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.
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
/Charles L. Jenkins, Jr./
Charles L. Jenkins, Jr.
Trademark Attorney
Law Office 112
571-272-9305
charles.jenkins@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE
