United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
|
U.S. Application Serial No. 88550372
Mark: PORTRAIT
|
|
|
Correspondence Address: |
|
|
Applicant: EllaMD, 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: October 30, 2019
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.
SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
The applicant has applied to register the mark PORTRAIT for:
Cosmetic creams for skin treatment; cosmetic preparations for skin treatment; cosmetics and cosmetic preparations; non-medicated preparations for skin care, skin treatment, skin protection, and skin health restoration; non-medicated preparations for hair care; nail care and hygiene preparations in International Class 3;
Medicated skincare and skin treatment preparations; pharmaceutical preparations for skin care, skin treatment, skin protection and skin health restoration; medicated topical creams and lotions for the treatment of dermatological conditions; pharmaceutical preparations for hair growth, restoration, conditioning, strengthening, treatment, and removal; medicinal preparations for nail care and hygiene; dietary and nutritional supplements; vitamin and mineral supplements in International Class 5;
Medical services; dermatology services; medical consultations; cosmetic body and skin care services; providing a website directed to consumers and medical providers that features medical information about skin care products and services; providing news and information in the fields of personal beauty and medicine relating to skin care products; skin care salons in International Class 44.
The registered mark is PORTRAIT OF A LADY for perfumery, perfumes, skincare preparations, namely, body wash; cosmetic preparations in aerosol form for hairdressing and haircare; hair lotions in International Class 3.
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
In the present case, applicant’s proposed mark PORTRAIT is similar to the registered mark PORTRAIT OF A LADY. 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).
In this instance, the respective marks create the same general overall commercial impression because the marks share the same sound, appearance, and connotation created by the shared identical and dominant term PORTRAIT. The word PORTRAIT is the dominant portion of the cited registration because it is the first term in the mark. Consumers are generally more inclined to focus on the first word, prefix, or syllable in any trademark or service mark. See Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 1372, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1692 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (finding similarity between VEUVE ROYALE and two VEUVE CLICQUOT marks in part because “VEUVE . . . remains a ‘prominent feature’ as the first word in the mark and the first word to appear on the label”); Century 21 Real Estate Corp. v. Century Life of Am., 970 F.2d 874, 876, 23 USPQ2d 1698, 1700 (Fed Cir. 1992) (finding similarity between CENTURY 21 and CENTURY LIFE OF AMERICA in part because “consumers must first notice th[e] identical lead word”); see also In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1303, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1049 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (finding “the identity of the marks’ two initial words is particularly significant because consumers typically notice those words first”).
Furthermore, the likelihood of confusion is increased in this case because the goods and/or services are identical in part and/or are closely related. Where the goods and/or services of an applicant and registrant are identical or virtually identical, the degree of similarity between the marks required to support a finding of likelihood of confusion is not as great as in the case of diverse goods and/or services. See In re Bay State Brewing Co., 117 USPQ2d 1958, 1960 (TTAB 2016) (citing Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1368, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); United Global Media Grp., Inc. v. Tseng, 112 USPQ2d 1039, 1049 (TTAB 2014) (quoting Century 21 Real Estate Corp. v. Century Life of Am., 970 F.2d 874, 877, 23 USPQ2d 1698, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 1992)); TMEP §1207.01(b).
Thus, upon encountering applicant’s proposed mark PORTRAIT for the goods and/or services listed above and registrant’s mark PORTRAIT OF A LADY for perfumery, perfumes, skincare preparations, namely, body wash; cosmetic preparations in aerosol form for hairdressing and haircare; hair lotions, consumers are likely to be confused and mistakenly believe that the respective identical and/or closely related goods and/or services emanate from a common source.
Relatedness of the Goods and/or Services
The respective goods and/or services of the parties are identical and/or are closely related. 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).
The applicant’s:
Cosmetic creams for skin treatment; cosmetic preparations for skin treatment; cosmetics and cosmetic preparations; non-medicated preparations for skin care, skin treatment, skin protection, and skin health restoration; non-medicated preparations for hair care; nail care and hygiene preparations in International Class 3;
Medicated skincare and skin treatment preparations; pharmaceutical preparations for skin care, skin treatment, skin protection and skin health restoration; medicated topical creams and lotions for the treatment of dermatological conditions; pharmaceutical preparations for hair growth, restoration, conditioning, strengthening, treatment, and removal; medicinal preparations for nail care and hygiene; dietary and nutritional supplements; vitamin and mineral supplements in International Class 5;
Medical services; dermatology services; medical consultations; cosmetic body and skin care services; providing a website directed to consumers and medical providers that features medical information about skin care products and services; providing news and information in the fields of personal beauty and medicine relating to skin care products; skin care salons in International Class 44.
are identical and/or are closely related to the registrant’s perfumery, perfumes, skincare preparations, namely, body wash; cosmetic preparations in aerosol form for hairdressing and haircare; hair lotions because the respective goods and/or services are marketed to the same type of customers in the same channels of trade. The identifications alone are proof of this fact.
In this case, the application uses broad wording to describe, e.g., non-medicated preparations for skin care, skin treatment, skin protection, and skin health restoration, which presumably encompasses all goods of the type described, including registrant’s more narrow, e.g., skincare preparations, namely, body wash. 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 and/or services 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.
Furthermore, the fact that the applicant’s goods and/or services are in the application and being offered by the applicant shows that the goods and/or services in the application may emanate from a common source.
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 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).
The attached internet evidence establishes that the same entity commonly provides the relevant goods and/or services and markets the goods and/or services under the same mark, that the relevant goods and/or services are sold or provided through the same trade channels and used by the same classes of consumers in the same fields of use, and that the goods and/or services are similar or complementary in terms of purpose or function. Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods and/or services are considered related for likelihood of confusion purposes. See, e.g., In re Davey Prods. Pty Ltd., 92 USPQ2d 1198, 1202-04 (TTAB 2009); In re Toshiba Med. Sys. Corp., 91 USPQ2d 1266, 1268-69, 1271-72 (TTAB 2009).
Therefore, because the marks share the dominant and identical term PORTRAIT and the goods and/or services are identical and/or are closely related, there is a likelihood of confusion as to the source of applicant’s goods and/or services. Consequently, the applicant’s mark is not entitled to registration.
PRIOR PENDING APPLICATION(S)
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.
IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS AND/OR SERVICES
The identification of goods and/or services is indefinite and must be clarified. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01. The applicant must identify the goods and/or services specifically to provide public notice to the average person who does not have an in-depth knowledge of the relevant field(s) and to enable the USPTO to classify the goods and/or services properly and to reach informed judgments concerning likelihood of confusion under 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).
In an identification, an applicant must use the common commercial or generic name for the goods and/or services, be specific and all-inclusive, and avoid using indefinite words or phrases. TMEP§§1402.01, 1402.03(a). If the goods have no common commercial or generic name, applicant must describe the product, its main purpose, and its intended uses. See id. If the services have no common commercial or generic name, applicant must describe or explain the nature of the services using clear and succinct language. See id. If applicable, open-ended terms (e.g., “including,” “such as”) must be deleted and replaced with a definite term, such as “namely,” “consisting of,” “particularly,” or “in particular.” See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03(a).
The applicant should describe the goods and/or services using wording that would be generally understood by the average person. See Schenley Indus., Inc. v. Battistoni, 112 USPQ 485, 486 (Comm’r Pats. 1957); Cal. Spray-Chem. Corp. v. Osmose Wood Pres. Co. of Am., 102 USPQ 321, 322 (Comm’r Pats. 1954); TMEP §1402.01. “[T]echnical, high-sounding verbiage” should be avoided. Id., 102 USPQ at 322.
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.
In this case, the applicant must clarify the nature of some of the goods and/or services as noted below.
Applicant may adopt the following identification if accurate [changes in bold text]:
Cosmetic creams for skin treatment; cosmetic preparations for skin treatment; cosmetics and cosmetic preparations; non-medicated preparations for skin care, skin treatment, skin protection, and skin health restoration; non-medicated preparations for hair care; nail care preparations; and nail care hygiene preparations in International Class 3;
Medicated skincare and skin treatment preparations; pharmaceutical preparations for skin care, skin treatment, skin protection and skin health restoration; medicated topical creams and lotions for the treatment of dermatological conditions; pharmaceutical preparations for hair growth, restoration, conditioning, strengthening, treatment, and removal; medicinal preparations for nail care and nail hygiene; dietary and nutritional supplements; vitamin and mineral supplements in International Class 5;
Medical services; dermatology services; medical consultations; cosmetic body and skin care services; providing a website directed to consumers and medical providers that features medical information about skin care products and services; providing news and information in the fields of personal beauty and medicine relating to skin care products; skin care salons in International Class 44.
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 Sections 1(b) and/or 44:
(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 three classes; however, applicant submitted a fee(s) sufficient for only three 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 Sections 1(b) and/or 44 multiple-class application and how to satisfy the requirements online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form.
INFORMATION ABOUT GOODS/SERVICES REQUIRED
Factual information about the goods must clearly indicate how they operate, their salient features, and their prospective customers and channels of trade. Factual information about the services must clearly indicate what the services are and how they are rendered, their salient features, and their prospective customers and channels of trade. Conclusory statements will not satisfy this requirement for information.
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.
Merely stating that information about the goods or services is available on applicant’s website is an insufficient response and will not make the relevant information of record. See In re Planalytics, Inc., 70 USPQ2d 1453, 1457-58 (TTAB 2004).
The applicant must directly answer the following question(s) and/or provide the information requested:
1. Does PORTRAIT have any significance as applied to the goods and/or services other than trademark and/or service mark significance?
2. Does PORTRAIT have any significance in the relevant trade or industry other than trademark and/or service mark significance?
3. If available, the applicant will provide a website address at which the goods and/or services are offered and/or the mark is used. If no website is available, then the applicant will state this fact for the record.
4. Does the applicant manufacture or offer any of the goods and/or services that appear in the registrant’s and/or prior pending applicants’ identification(s) of goods and/or services?
5. Is the applicant aware of any other company and/or person(s) that provides both the goods and/or services, in whole or in part, listed in both the applicant’s identification and the registrant’s and/or prior pending applicants’ identification(s)? If so, the applicant must provide the name of the company and/or person(s) and any available website address for the same. The applicant need not provide more than five references per each cited registration and/or prior pending application.
QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS ACTION
If the applicant has technical questions about the TEAS response to Office action form, the applicant can review the electronic filing tips available online at http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/e_filing_tips.jsp and send technical questions to the TEAS Support Team at TEAS@uspto.gov via e-mail. Please include your name, telephone number, serial number and/or registration number, a description of the issue, including the name of the TEAS form you are having problems with (e.g., “Response to Office Action Form,” “Request for Extension of Time to File a Statement of Use,” etc.), and a screen shot of any error message that you are receiving. You should receive a response within two (2) hours if the e-mail message is submitted during normal business hours.
For status inquiries or copies of documents, an applicant may check the status of or view documents filed in the trademark and/or service mark application or registration twenty-four (24) hours a day, seven (7) days a week, using the Trademark Status and Document Retrieval (TSDR) database on the USPTO website at http://tsdr.gov.uspto.report/. To obtain this status or view these documents, enter the application serial number or registration number and click on “Status” or “Documents.” Do not attempt to check status until approximately four to five (4-5) days after submission of a filing, to allow sufficient time for all USPTO databases to be updated.
For all other non-legal matters, including petitions to revive or reinstate an application, please contact the Trademark Assistance Center (TAC). TAC may be reached by e-mail at TrademarkAssistanceCenter@uspto.gov or by telephone at (800) 786-9199. For non-technical matters, TAC is open from 8:30 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST), Monday through Friday, except on federal government holidays. A list of federal government holidays is available at the following website: http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/snow-dismissal-procedures/federal-holidays/.
If applicant has questions regarding the legal issues in this Office action, please call the assigned trademark examining attorney.
How to respond. Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action
/Brian Pino/
Examining Attorney
Law Office 114
571.272.9209 Telephone
Brian.Pino2@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE
