United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
|
U.S. Application Serial No. 88629488
Mark: PLUTO
|
|
|
Correspondence Address: 621 SW MORRISON ST., SUITE 900
|
|
|
Applicant: Genius IP 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 02, 2020
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.
Registration Refused – Section 2(d) Likelihood of Confusion
The applied-for mark is “PLUTO” in standard characters for “Vaporizer batteries; vaporizer heating elements; vaporizer chargers” in International Class 34.
The registered mark is “PLUTO” in standard characters for “Electronic cigarette liquid (e-liquid) comprised of flavorings in liquid form used to refill electronic cigarette cartridges” in International Class 30.
In this case, the following factors are the most relevant: similarity of the marks, similarity and nature of the goods, and similarity of the trade channels of the goods. See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1361-62, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.
Comparison of 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); TMEP §1207.01(b)-(b)(v).
In the present case, applicant’s mark is “PLUTO” in standard characters and registrant’s mark is “PLUTO” in standard characters. 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.
Comparison of Goods
Here, the goods are related because the goods commonly emanate from the same commercial entity and are similar in use as both are used in the function and operation of oral vaporizers for smoking purposes. In support thereof, the examining attorney has attached Internet evidence from manufacturers and retailers of electronic vaporizers (“Exhibit B”). This evidence establishes that the same entity commonly manufactures e-liquids, chargers and batteries, and heating elements, such as coils, for oral vaporizers for smoking purposes, which are marketed and sold through the same trade channels and for the same classes of consumers. For example, Atmos® produces chargers, batteries, heating elements, and e-liquids to be used with an oral vaporizer to allow it to operate, which is marketed and sold on its online retail stores to smokers.
Therefore, the goods of the applicant and registrant are considered related for likelihood of confusion purposes. See, e.g., In re Davey Prods. Pty Ltd., 92 USPQ2d 1198, 1202-04 (TTAB 2009).
Conclusion
Because the applicant’s applied-for mark and the registered mark are similar and the goods are related, registration is refused for a likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d).
Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration. However, if applicant responds to the refusal, applicant must also respond to the requirement set forth below.
Prior-Filed Applications
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. However, the applicant must address the other issues raised in this Office action.
Identification and Classification of Goods
Applicant may respond by (1) adding one or more international class(es) to the application, and reclassifying the above goods accordingly; or (2) deleting from the application the goods for all but the number of international class(es) for which the application fee was submitted. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.86(a), 6.1; TMEP §§1403.02 et seq. If applicant adds one or more international classes to the application, applicant must comply with the multiple-class application requirements specified in this Office action.
In addition, the wording “vaporizer chargers” in International Class 34 is indefinite and appears misclassified. In particular, the applicant does not specify the nature of the charger, such as being a battery charger, which would be classified in International Class 9. Therefore, the applicant must revise this entry to clarify the nature of the charger and classify the goods in the proper international class.
Applicant may adopt the following identification of goods, if accurate. The examining attorney has bolded and underlined additions to the applicant’s original identification of goods.
Class 009: Vaporizer batteries; Vaporizer battery chargers
Class 011: Vaporizer heating elements
Applicant may amend the identification to clarify or limit the goods, but not to broaden or expand the goods beyond those in the original application or as acceptably amended. See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06. Generally, any deleted goods may not later be reinserted. See TMEP §1402.07(e).
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.
Multi-Class Application Requirements
The application references goods based on use in commerce in more than one international class; therefore, applicant must satisfy all the requirements below for each international class:
(1) List the goods by their international class number in consecutive numerical order, starting with the lowest numbered class (for example, International Class 3: perfume; International Class 18: cosmetic bags sold empty).
(2) Submit a filing fee for each international class not covered by the fee already paid (view the USPTO’s current fee schedule). Specifically, the application identifies goods based on use in commerce that are classified in at least two (2) classes; however, applicant submitted a fee sufficient for only one (1) class. Applicant must either (a) submit the filing fees for the classes not covered by the submitted fees or (b) restrict the application to the number of classes covered by the fees already paid.
(3) Submit verified dates of first use of the mark anywhere and in commerce for each international class. See more information about verified dates of use.
(4) Submit a specimen for each international class. The current specimen is acceptable for International Class 9; and applicant needs a specimen for International Class 11. See more information about specimens.
Examples of specimens for goods include tags, labels, instruction manuals, containers, and photographs that show the mark on the actual goods or packaging, or displays associated with the actual goods at their point of sale. Webpages may also be specimens for goods when they include a picture or textual description of the goods associated with the mark and the means to order the goods.
(5) Submit a verified statement that “The specimen was in use in commerce on or in connection with the goods listed in the application at least as early as the filing date of the application.” See more information about verification.
See 15 U.S.C. §§1051(a), 1112; 37 C.F.R. §§2.32(a)(6)-(7), 2.34(a)(1), 2.86(a); TMEP §§904, 1403.01, 1403.02(c).
See an overview of the requirements for a Section 1(a) multiple-class application and how to satisfy the requirements online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form.
The fee for adding classes to a TEAS Reduced Fee (RF) application is $275 per class. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.6(a)(1)(iii), 2.23(a). See more information regarding the requirements for maintaining the lower TEAS RF fee and, if these requirements are not satisfied, for adding classes at a higher fee using regular TEAS.
Response Guidelines
Please call or email the assigned trademark examining attorney with questions about this Office action. Although the trademark examining attorney cannot provide legal advice or statements about applicant’s rights, the trademark examining attorney can provide applicant with additional explanation about the refusal and requirement in this Office action. See TMEP §§705.02, 709.06. Although the USPTO does not accept emails as responses to Office actions, emails can be used for informal communications and will be included in the application record. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(c), 2.191; TMEP §§304.01-.02, 709.04-.05.
If the applicant has any questions or requires assistance in responding to this Office action, please telephone the assigned examining attorney.
/Thomas P. Young/
Examining Attorney
Law Office 120
thomas.young@uspto.gov
(571) 272-5152
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.
RESPONSE GUIDANCE
