To: | Alchemy Works, LLC (dschnider@nolanheimann.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88584682 - HITS - N/A |
Sent: | January 09, 2020 08:39:39 AM |
Sent As: | ecom108@uspto.gov |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 Attachment - 5 Attachment - 6 Attachment - 7 Attachment - 8 Attachment - 9 Attachment - 10 Attachment - 11 Attachment - 12 Attachment - 13 Attachment - 14 Attachment - 15 Attachment - 16 Attachment - 17 Attachment - 18 Attachment - 19 Attachment - 20 Attachment - 21 Attachment - 22 Attachment - 23 Attachment - 24 Attachment - 25 Attachment - 26 Attachment - 27 Attachment - 28 Attachment - 29 Attachment - 30 Attachment - 31 Attachment - 32 Attachment - 33 Attachment - 34 Attachment - 35 Attachment - 36 Attachment - 37 Attachment - 38 Attachment - 39 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88584682
Mark: HITS
|
|
Correspondence Address:
|
|
Applicant: Alchemy Works, LLC
|
|
Reference/Docket No. N/A
Correspondence Email Address: |
|
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: January 09, 2020
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.
Specifically, applicant must address the following issues:
· Section 2(d) refusal; and
· Identification requirement.
Refusal – Section 2(d) 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 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).
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).
Disclaimed matter that is descriptive of or generic for a party’s goods and/or services is typically less significant or less dominant when comparing marks. In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1305, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1050 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing In re Dixie Rests., Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 1407, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533-34 (Fed. Cir. 1997)); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii).
Here, registrant’s mark is “MOISTURE HIT” in standard characters with a disclaimer of “MOISTURE”. Because “MOISTURE” is disclaimed as being descriptive of the registrant’s goods, the dominant, and most source-indicative portion of the mark is “HIT”. “HIT” is highly similar to applicant’s mark, “HITS” in stylized presentation. The marks are highly similar because both marks contain the term “HIT”.
Similarly, that applicant’s mark is presented in a stylized font with a lightning bolt as the dot in the “I” does not obviate the marks’ similarities. When evaluating a composite mark consisting of words and a design, the word portion is normally accorded greater weight because it is likely to make a greater impression upon purchasers, be remembered by them, and be used by them to refer to or request the goods and/or services. In re Aquitaine Wine USA, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1181, 1184 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); TMEP §1207.01(c)(ii). Thus, although marks must be compared in their entireties, the word portion is often considered the dominant feature and is accorded greater weight in determining whether marks are confusingly similar, even where the word portion has been disclaimed. In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d at 1366-67, 101 USPQ2d at 1911 (citing Giant Food, Inc. v. Nation’s Foodservice, Inc., 710 F.2d 1565, 1570-71, 218 USPQ2d 390, 395 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).
Thus, when comparing the marks as a whole, the overall impression is that of highly similar marks.
Comparing the Goods
Here, applicant’s goods are listed as:
International Class 003: Lotions for face and body care; Body lotions; Skin lotions; Hand lotions; Bar soap; Bath soaps in liquid, solid or gel form; Cream soaps; Hand soaps; Liquid soaps; Non-medicated skin care creams and lotions; Skin care preparations, namely, body balm; Non-medicated herbal body care products, namely, body oils, salves, and lip balms; Face and body creams; Topical herbal extracts for cosmetic purposes; All of the foregoing containing hemp-derived Cannabidiol (CBD) with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis obtained from an authorized source under the 2018 Farm Bill.
Registrant’s goods are listed as:
International Class 003: Cosmetics, namely, lip balm, non-medicated lip care preparations, lip repairers, lip cream.
Both parties list lip balm. Registrant’s lip balm is broadly listed, and would necessarily include lip balms with the ingredients that applicant specifically lists. Therefore, that portion of the identification is identical. It is presumed that the channels of trade and class(es) of purchasers are the same for these goods. See Cai v. Diamond Hong, Inc., __ F.3d __, 27 USPQ2d 1797, 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012)).
Thus, a comparison of the goods shows that the goods are highly related.
Conclusion
In sum, for the reasons outlined above, applicant’s mark is refused registration based on a likelihood of confusion with the cited mark. Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.
Requirement – Identification
All identifications must be precise and identify the goods with particularity using common or commercial names for the goods. TMEP §1402.01.
Current Identification
Applicant’s current identification reads (applicant should note that the wording requiring amendment, as discussed further below, has been highlighted in bold font):
International Class 003: Lotions for face and body care; Body lotions; Skin lotions; Hand lotions; Bar soap; Bath soaps in liquid, solid or gel form; Cream soaps; Hand soaps; Liquid soaps; Non-medicated skin care creams and lotions; Skin care preparations, namely, body balm; Non-medicated herbal body care products, namely, body oils, salves, and lip balms; Face and body creams; Topical herbal extracts for cosmetic purposes; All of the foregoing containing hemp-derived Cannabidiol (CBD) with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis obtained from an authorized source under the 2018 Farm Bill.
Suggested Amendment
Applicant may adopt the following identification, if accurate (applicant should note that the suggested amended language appears in bold font):
International Class 003: Lotions for face and body care; Body lotions; Skin lotions; Hand lotions; Bar soap; Bath soaps in liquid, solid or gel form; Cream soaps; non-medicated hand soaps; non-medicated liquid soaps; Non-medicated skin care creams and lotions; Skin care preparations, namely, body balm; Non-medicated herbal body care products, namely, body oils, salves, and lip balms; Face and body creams; Topical herbal extracts for cosmetic purposes; All of the foregoing containing hemp-derived Cannabidiol (CBD) with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis obtained from an authorized source under the 2018 Farm Bill.
Limitation on Amendments
While an application may be amended to clarify or limit the identification, additions to the identification are not permitted. 37 C.F.R. Section 2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06. Trademark Rule 2.71(a), 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a), restricts amendments to the identification of goods or services as follows, “The applicant may amend the application to clarify or limit, but not to broaden, the identification of goods and/or services.” This rule applies to all applications.
Therefore, the applicant may not amend to include any goods or services that are not within the scope of goods or service set forth in the present identification.
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.
Advisory – Potential Refusal
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.
Response Guidelines
For this application to proceed toward registration, applicant must explicitly address each refusal and/or requirement raised in this Office action. If the action includes a refusal, applicant may provide arguments and/or evidence as to why the refusal should be withdrawn and the mark should register. Applicant may also have other options for responding to a refusal and should consider such options carefully. To respond to requirements and certain refusal response options, applicant should set forth in writing the required changes or statements.
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.
/Andrea R. Hack/
Andrea Hack
Examining Attorney
Law Office 108
571-272-5413
andrea.hack@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE