To: | Clark, David J. (robindkelson@gmail.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88626949 - GENESIS BIOCHAR - GEN-001TM |
Sent: | December 23, 2019 06:50:02 PM |
Sent As: | ecom110@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 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88626949
Mark: GENESIS BIOCHAR
|
|
Correspondence Address:
|
|
Applicant: Clark, David J.
|
|
Reference/Docket No. GEN-001TM
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 23, 2019
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.
SUMMARY OF ISSUES that applicant must address:
SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – 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.
Comparison of the Marks
The applied-for mark is GENESIS BIOCHAR in standard characters with a disclaimer requirement for the generic term “BIOCHAR” apart from the mark as shown.
The mark in U.S. Registration No. 4140613 is GENESIS BIOSCIENCES in stylized characters with a disclaimer of “BIOSCIENCES” apart from the mark as shown.
The mark in U.S. Registration No. 5935652 is GENESIS RX in standard characters.
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 Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Nat’l Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 1058, 224 USPQ 749, 751 (Fed. Cir. 1985); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii). 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).
Comparison of the Goods
Applicant’s goods are as follows:
Planting soil; Soil conditioners for agricultural purposes; Soil conditioners for horticultural purposes; Soil conditioners for agricultural, comercial, and home gardening use; Horticultural for agricultural, domestic and horticultural use for landscapes, golf courses, farming and gardening that are incorporated into or onto a turf, lawn or soil profile; Nutritive additive to enhance the biological activity of water, soil, seeds and plants for purposes of fertilization and bioremediation of pollutants; Organic potting soil; Organic soil additives; Organic soil amendments; Organic soil enhancement powders and preparations; Potting soil; Soil additives; Soil amendments; Soil improving agents; Soil wetting agents and soil penetrants;
The relevant goods in U.S. Registration No. 4140613 are:
Nutritive additive to enhance the biological activity of water, soil, seeds and plants for purposes of fertilization and bioremediation of pollutants;
The goods in U.S. Registration No. 5935652 are:
Horticultural turfgrass nutrients that are incorporated into or onto a turf, lawn or soil profile;
Thus, offers either identical or highly overlapping goods with each cited registration.
In this case, the various broad terms for “soil amendments” and “soil additives” listed in applicant’s identification of goods are broad enough to encompass the narrower types of goods in each cited registration, while applicant’s identification also contains the same identical wording as listed in U.S. Registration No. 4140613 and applicant’s wording “” is indefinite and encompasses the identification in U.S. Registration No. 5935652. 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 each 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 registrants’ goods are related.
In sum, applicant’s mark is highly similar to each registrant’s mark and applicant’s and registrants’ goods are identical, overlapping, and/or closely related. Therefore, the application is refused under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.
IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS REQUIRES AMENDMENT
In particular, applicant has apparently omitted one or more words from the fill-in-the-blank entry which reads as follows in the ID Manual:
Horticultural {specify type of chemical preparation, e.g., soil amendments, soil conditioners, etc.} that are incorporated into or onto a turf, lawn or soil profile;
Applicant submitted the following wording based on the above entry:
Horticultural for agricultural, domestic and horticultural use for landscapes, golf courses, farming and gardening that are incorporated into or onto a turf, lawn or soil profile;
Therefore, applicant must amend this wording to specify the “type of chemical preparation,” as required by the original parenthetical guidance for the blank.
Additionally, the wording “commercial” is misspelled as “comercial” in a different clause in the identification; this typographical error should also be corrected.
If applicant has any questions about any of the suggested wording, below, such as if this suggested wording is inaccurate or incomplete, then applicant is encouraged to contact the undersigned for a more detailed explanation or to discuss alternative amendments. Contact information is provided on the signature line.
Suggested Wording
Applicant may adopt the following identification of goods, if accurate (suggested changes shown in bold typeface):
Class 1:
Planting soil; Soil conditioners for agricultural purposes; Soil conditioners for horticultural purposes; Soil conditioners for agricultural, commercial, and home gardening use; Horticultural soil amendments for agricultural, domestic and horticultural use for landscapes, golf courses, farming and gardening that are incorporated into or onto a turf, lawn or soil profile; Nutritive additive to enhance the biological activity of water, soil, seeds and plants for purposes of fertilization and bioremediation of pollutants; Organic potting soil; Organic soil additives; Organic soil amendments; Organic soil enhancement powders and preparations; Potting soil; Soil additives; Soil amendments; Soil improving agents; Soil wetting agents and soil penetrants
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.
DISCLAIMER REQUIRED
In this case, applicant must disclaim the wording “BIOCHAR” because it is merely descriptive of an ingredient or characteristic 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 attached online dictionary evidence establishes that “biochar” is a form of charcoal frequently used as a soil amendment; therefore, this wording merely describes that applicant’s goods are in the nature of biochar or feature biochar as an ingredient.
Applicant may respond to this issue by submitting a disclaimer in the following format:
No claim is made to the exclusive right to use “BIOCHAR” 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.
RESPONSE GUIDELINES
For this application to proceed, applicant must explicitly address each refusal and/or requirement in this Office action. For a refusal, applicant may provide written arguments and evidence against the refusal, and may have other response options if specified above. For a requirement, applicant should set forth the changes or statements. Please see “Responding to Office Actions” and the informational video “Response to Office Action” for more information and tips on responding.
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.
/Wendell S. Phillips III/
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 110
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
(571) 272-5271
wendell.phillips@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE