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:  November 20, 2019

 

INTRODUCTION

 

The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney.  Applicant must respond timely and completely to the issues below.  15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(a), 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.

 

SUMMARY OF ISSUES:

 

1. Section 2(d) – Likelihood Of Confusion Refusal
2. Section 2(e)(1) – Mere Descriptiveness Refusal
3. Advisory: Supplemental Register Not Permitted Until Acceptable Amendment To Allege Use Filed

 

SECTION 2(d) – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION REFUSAL

 

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 5124461.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registration.

 

In this case, applicant has applied to register the mark “GOLD STANDARD” for use in connection with “Ready to drink beverages, namely, energy drinks and sports drinks; sports training drinks; energy drinks and sports drinks containing nutritional supplements; sports drinks fortified with protein; powders for the preparation of beverages, namely, energy and sports drinks; smoothies” in Class 32.

 

The mark in Registration No. 5124461 is “GOLD STANDARD” used in connection with “beer,” in Class 32.

 

Introduction to Section 2(d) Analysis

 

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 [or services] and differences in the marks.”); TMEP §1207.01.

 

Similarity of the Marks

 

In a likelihood of confusion determination, the marks in their entireties are compared for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression.  In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1323, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2017); 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)); In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973); TMEP §1207.01(b)-(b)(v). 

 

In the present case, applicant’s mark is “GOLD STANDARD” and registrant’s mark is “GOLD STANDARD”.  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. 

 

Relatedness of the Goods

 

Determining likelihood of confusion is based on the description of the goods stated in the application and registration at issue, not on extrinsic evidence of actual use.  See In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1307, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1052 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1325, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1749 (Fed. Cir. 2017)).  

 

Additionally, 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).

 

In this case, applicant’s energy and sports drinks are closely related to registrant’s beer because the goods are frequently offered in the same channels of trade and under the same mark.  The following attached Internet evidence demonstrates that beer and energy or sports drinks are frequently consumed together and offered in the same channels of trade, such as bars and clubs.  See e.g.,

 

1.       http://www.addictioncampuses.com/blog/mixing-alcohol-energy-drinks/ (“The Dangers Of Mixing Alcohol and Energy Drinks…As energy drinks surge in popularity across the country, they've brought a new trend with them- mixing caffeinated beverages with alcohol. The combination of energy drinks and alcohol has created a host of new flavorful drinks that mask the feelings of being drunk while keeping drinkers up for hours. Despite the growing fan base, particularly among teens and young adults, mixing energy drinks with alcohol can be dangerous and, in rare cases, deadly.”).

 

2.      http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/caffeine-and-alcohol.htm (“Mixing alcohol with energy drinks is a popular practice, especially among young people in the United States. In 2017, 10.6% of students in grades 8, 10, and 12 and 31.8% of young adults aged 19 to 28 reported consuming alcohol mixed with energy drinks at least once in the past year.”)

 

3.      http://www.bbc.com/news/health-39326304 (“Mixing spirits and liqueurs with energy drinks, such as Red Bull and Monster, has become increasingly popular - in pubs and clubs, and at home.”)

 

4.      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18439201 (“Caffeinated cocktails: energy drink consumption, high-risk drinking, and alcohol-related consequences among college students….Conclusion: Almost one-quarter of college student current drinkers reported mixing alcohol with energy drinks.”).

 

5.      http://alcoholjustice.org/images/stories/pdfs/energydrinks_and_intoxication.pdf (“Recent studies employing non-probability sampling have found that 73% of an American college sample (Malinauskas et al., 2007) and 85% of an Italian medical school student sample (Oteri, Salvo, Caputi, & Calapai, 2007) had consumed energy drinks mixed with alcohol during the past month. College students are a major market for energy drinks (O'Brien, McCoy, Rhodes, Wagoner, & Wolfson, 2008) and they are a ubiquitous feature of recreational events in many campus communities (Miller, 2008a). The major motivations college students cite for using energy drinks is to compensate for insufficient sleep, increase energy, and mix with alcohol while partying (Malinauskas et al., 2007). In regard to alcohol abuse, concerns have emerged over the increasing popularity of such drinks as “Red Bull and vodka” and “Jager Bombs” (Jagermeister and Red Bull) served at bars and nightclubs (O'Brien et al., 2008).”).

 

The attached evidence establishes that goods similar to the parties’ respective goods are frequently consumed together.  Where evidence shows that the goods at issue have complementary uses, and thus are often used together or otherwise purchased by the same purchasers for the same or related purposes, such goods have generally been found to be sufficiently related such that confusion would be likely if they are marketed under the same or similar marks.  See In re Martin’s Famous Pastry Shoppe, Inc., 748 F.2d 1565, 1567, 223 USPQ 1289, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (holding bread and cheese to be related because they are often used in combination and noting that “[s]uch complementary use has long been recognized as a relevant consideration in determining a likelihood of confusion”); In re Toshiba Med. Sys. Corp., 91 USPQ2d 1266, 1272 (TTAB 2009) (holding medical MRI diagnostic apparatus and medical ultrasound devices to be related, based in part on the fact that such goods have complementary purposes because they may be used by the same medical personnel on the same patients to treat the same disease).  Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s respective goods are closely related under the likelihood of confusion analysis.

 

Additionally, 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 as those of both applicant and registrant in this case.  This evidence shows that the goods listed therein, namely, sports drinks, energy drinks, smoothies, and beer 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).

 

See Registration Nos. 5832195, 5689656, 5495832, 5109595, 4769857, 5154229, 4684862, and 5212882.

 

This evidence establishes that the relevant goods are sold or provided through the same trade channels and used by the same classes of consumers in the same fields of use.  Accordingly, applicant’s and registrant’s goods 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).]

 

Ultimately, because the marks are confusingly similar and the goods are closely related, it is likely a potential consumer would be confused, mistaken, or deceived as to the source of the goods of the applicant and registrant.  Therefore, registration must be refused under Section 2(d).

 

Response to Section 2(d) – Likelihood of Confusion Refusal

 

Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.

 

Applicant should note the following additional ground for refusal.

 

SECTION 2(e)(1) – MERE DESCRIPTIVENESS REFUSAL

 

Registration is refused because the applied-for mark is laudatory and therefore descriptive of a  feature of applicant’s goods.  Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1); see TMEP §§1209.01(b), 1209.03 et seq.

 

A mark is merely descriptive if it describes an ingredient, quality, characteristic, function, feature, purpose, or use of an applicant’s goods.  TMEP §1209.01(b); see, e.g., In re TriVita, Inc., 783 F.3d 872, 874, 114 USPQ2d 1574, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d 1171, 1173, 71 USPQ2d 1370, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004)); In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d 1293, 1297, 75 USPQ2d 1420, 1421 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing Estate of P.D. Beckwith, Inc. v. Comm’r of Patents, 252 U.S. 538, 543 (1920)). 

 

Generally, if the individual components of a mark retain their descriptive meaning in relation to the goods, the combination results in a composite mark that is itself descriptive and not registrable.  In re Fat Boys Water Sports LLC, 118 USPQ2d 1511, 1516 (TTAB 2016) (citing In re Tower Tech, Inc., 64 USPQ2d 1314, 1317-18 (TTAB (2002)); TMEP §1209.03(d); see, e.g., Apollo Med. Extrusion Techs., Inc. v. Med. Extrusion Techs., Inc., 123 USPQ2d 1844, 1851 (TTAB 2017) (holding MEDICAL EXTRUSION TECHNOLOGIES merely descriptive of medical extrusion goods produced by employing medical extrusion technologies); In re Cannon Safe, Inc., 116 USPQ2d 1348, 1351 (TTAB 2015) (holding SMART SERIES merely descriptive of metal gun safes); In re King Koil Licensing Co., 79 USPQ2d 1048, 1052 (TTAB 2006) (holding THE BREATHABLE MATTRESS merely descriptive of beds, mattresses, box springs, and pillows). 

 

Only where the combination of descriptive terms creates a unitary mark with a unique, incongruous, or otherwise nondescriptive meaning in relation to the goods is the combined mark registrable.  See In re Colonial Stores, Inc., 394 F.2d 549, 551, 157 USPQ 382, 384 (C.C.P.A. 1968); In re Positec Grp. Ltd., 108 USPQ2d 1161, 1162-63 (TTAB 2013).

 

In this case, the mark, “GOLD STANDARD”, is defined as “something that is considered to be the best and that is used to judge the quality or level of other, similar things.”  See http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/the%20gold%20standard.  As such, the mark directly conveys the applied-for goods are the best of its type, and is therefore laudatory.

 

“Marks that are merely laudatory and descriptive of the alleged merit of a product [or service] are . . . regarded as being descriptive” because “[s]elf-laudatory or puffing marks are regarded as a condensed form of describing the character or quality of the goods [or services].”  DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1256, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1759 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re The Boston Beer Co., 198 F.3d 1370, 1373, 53 USPQ2d 1056, 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1999)); see In re Nett Designs, Inc., 236 F.3d 1339, 1342, 57 USPQ2d 1564, 1566 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (holding THE ULTIMATE BIKE RACK merely laudatory and descriptive of applicant’s bicycle racks being of superior quality); In re The Boston Beer Co., 198 F.3d at 1373-74, 53 USPQ2d at 1058-59 (holding THE BEST BEER IN AMERICA merely laudatory and descriptive of applicant’s beer and ale being of superior quality); TMEP §1209.03(k).  In fact, “puffing, if anything, is more likely to render a mark merely descriptive, not less so.”  DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d at 1256, 103 USPQ2d at 1759.

 

The following attached evidence demonstrates the phrase “GOLD STANDARD” is commonly used in connection with similar goods to convey goods that are the best of their type.  See e.g.,

 

1.      http://marcuspape.com/xsgold/ (“XS Gold will provide deeper, more meaningful energy to the XS Nation. As a distributor, you are on the front-lines of this exciting new gold standard in energy drinks, what we are calling functional energy.”)

 

2.      http://www.gq.com/story/what-to-eat-after-workout (“The 7 Best Things to Eat and Drink After Your Workout…The Lowdown: Trendy foods come and go—but "an egg is the gold standard," says dietitian Leah Mark, M.S., C.D.N., C.P.T. Though they weigh in at just 70 calories apiece, eggs contain all nine essential amino acids (the building blocks of protein), plus branched-chain amino acids, which help reduce muscle damage in the body. And if you're after the most nutritional bang for your buck, don't even think about throwing away the yolk: That golden center is home to half the protein, not to mention all of the egg's vitamin D and omega-3 fatty acids.”).

 

3.      http://www.accesswire.com/442607/Kona-Gold-Solutions-Inc-Places-Order-for-New-Hemp-Infused-Energy-Drink (“Kona Gold will begin developing Hemp Energy Drinks, Energy Patches, Hemp Apparel, Hemp Shampoo as well as a Hydroponics division…There are many hemp companies out there that get lost in the crowd, but Kona Gold sets the gold standard with its premiere line of products.”).

 

4.      http://www.goodhousekeeping.com/health/fitness/g28089471/best-protein-powder/ (“The 12 Best Protein Powders You Can Buy Online, According to a Nutritionist…Eating real, whole ingredients to up your protein intake (particularly: eggs, seafood, beef, poultry, legumes, seeds, nuts, dairy products, and pork) is always the gold standard, no matter what.”).

 

The attached evidence of third-party usage of the phrase “GOLD STANDARD” to describe goods that are the best of their kind demonstrates that purchasers will immediately understand the applied-for-mark as describing the quality of the applied-for goods is the best.  Thus the mark is merely laudatory and descriptive of the alleged merit of the applied-for goods.

 

Ultimately, when purchasers encounter applicant’s goods, they will immediately understand the mark as an indication of a feature of applicant’s goods rather than as an indication that applicant is the source of the goods.  Therefore, the mark is merely descriptive and registration is refused pursuant to Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act. 

 

Response to Section 2(e)(1) – Mere Descriptiveness Refusal

 

Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.

 

ADVISORY: SUPPLEMENTAL REGISTER NOT PERMITTED UNTIL ACCEPTABLE AMENDMENT TO ALLEGE USE FILED

 

Although an amendment to the Supplemental Register would normally be an appropriate response to the Section 2(e)(1) refusal ONLY, such a response is not appropriate in the present case.  The instant application was filed under Trademark Act Section 1(b) and is not eligible for registration on the Supplemental Register until an acceptable amendment to allege use meeting the requirements of 37 C.F.R. §2.76 has been timely filed.  37 C.F.R. §2.47(d); TMEP §§816.02, 1102.03.

 

If applicant files an acceptable allegation of use and also amends to the Supplemental Register, the application effective filing date will be the date applicant met the minimum filing requirements under 37 C.F.R. §2.76(c) for an amendment to allege use.  TMEP §§816.02, 1102.03; see 37 C.F.R. §2.75(b).  In addition, the undersigned trademark examining attorney will conduct a new search of the USPTO records for conflicting marks based on the later application filing date.  TMEP §§206.01, 1102.03.

 

RESPONSE GUIDANCE

 

How to respond.  Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action  

 

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.  

 

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.

ASSISTANCE

Please call or email the assigned trademark examining attorney with questions about this Office action.

If applicant requires technical assistance in using the online response form, applicant may email TEAS@uspto.gov or call the Trademark Assistance Center at 1-800-786-9199.

 

/Tiffany Y. Chiang/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 113

(571) 272-7681

tiffany.chiang@uspto.gov

 

 

 

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

 

USPTO OFFICIAL NOTICE

 

Office Action (Official Letter) has issued

on November 20, 2019 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88581647

 

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. 

 

 

/Tiffany Y. Chiang/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 113

(571) 272-7681

tiffany.chiang@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 November 20, 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.”