To: | Sysco Corporation (nbelzer@belzerlaw.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88596358 - PASTA LA BELLA - 14775-252(E) |
Sent: | December 02, 2019 06:50:58 PM |
Sent As: | ecom106@uspto.gov |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 Attachment - 5 Attachment - 6 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88596358
Mark: PASTA LA BELLA
|
|
Correspondence Address:
|
|
Applicant: Sysco Corporation
|
|
Reference/Docket No. 14775-252(E)
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: December 02, 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
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.
In the present instance, the proposed mark is PASTA LA BELLA for pasta and the registered mark is PASTA BELLA for flours; cereal-based snack foods; bread, yeast, pastry; biscuits, cakes, cookies, wafers, toffees, puddings; rice, pasta, noodles; frozen prepared entrees consisting primarily of pasta or rice; pizza; sandwiches; mixtures of alimentary paste and oven-ready prepared dough; cake mixes; sauces, sauce mixes; soya sauce; ketchup; seasonings, edible spices, condiments, namely, chutneys, pepper sauce; pickled ginger, and relish; salad dressings, mayonnaise; mustard; vinegar; cooked polenta or dry cornmeal and cake mixes. The proposed mark and the registered mark share the common significant terms PASTA and BELLA. Furthermore, the goods offered by the registrant and applicant are closely related.
Similarity of 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).
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).
The only difference between the proposed mark and the registered mark is the additional term LA in the proposed mark.
Therefore, the marks are confusingly similar.
Similarity/Relatedness of Goods
Here, both applicant and registrant are offering pasta. Therefore, the goods are similar and related.
Accordingly, registration is refused under Section 2(d).
TEAS Plus Application Requirement Not Met
The additional fee is required even if applicant later corrects these application requirements.
Translation of Foreign Wording
The following English translation is suggested:
The English translation of “LA BELLA” in the mark is “THE BEAUTIFUL”. TMEP §809.03.
See attached translation evidence.
DISCLAIMER REQUIRED
In this case, applicant must disclaim the wording “PASTA” because it is not inherently distinctive. These unregistrable term(s) at best are merely descriptive of an ingredient, quality, characteristic, function, feature, purpose, or use of applicant’s goods. See 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1); DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1251, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1755 (Fed. Cir. 2012); TMEP §§1213, 1213.03(a).
The word “PASTA” is merely descriptive of applicant’s goods as it appears in the identification of goods.
Applicant may respond to this issue by submitting a disclaimer in the following format:
No claim is made to the exclusive right to use “PASTA” apart from the mark as shown.
For an overview of disclaimers and instructions on how to satisfy this issue using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), see the Disclaimer webpage.
How to respond. Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action.
/Sally Shih/
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 106
United States Patent & Trademark Office
sally.shih@uspto.gov
571-272-9712
RESPONSE GUIDANCE