United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88651890
Mark: FERTIGLOBE
|
|
Correspondence Address: PORZIO, BROMBERG & NEWMAN, P.C.
|
|
Applicant: Fertiglobe Holding Ltd
|
|
Reference/Docket No. 5744-355 US
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 23, 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.
SUMMARY OF ISSUES:
· Identification of Goods and Services Amendment Required
· Clarification of the Number of Classes for Which Registration is Sought Required
· Advisory: Multiple Class Application Requirements
· Entity Clarification Required
SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark FERTIGLOBAL in U.S. Registration No. 3088231. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the attached registration.
Applicant’s mark is FERTIGLOBE (combination word and design mark) used in connection with the goods “Fertilisers; nitrogen; urea; ammonia; diesel exhaust fluid” in International Class 001 and the services “wholesale service relating to fertilisers, nitrogen, urea, ammonia, diesel exhaust fluid” in International Class 035.
Registrant’s mark is FERTIGLOBAL (typed drawing) used in connection with the goods “fertilizers for agricultural use, fertilizers for domestic use” in International Class 001.
Trademark Act Section 2(d) bars registration of an applied-for mark that so resembles a registered mark that it is likely a consumer would be confused, mistaken, or deceived as to the source of the goods and services of the applicant and registrant. See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d). Determining likelihood of confusion is made 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). In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1322, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1747 (Fed. Cir. 2017). However, “[n]ot all of the [du Pont] factors are relevant to every case, and only factors of significance to the particular mark need be considered.” Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1366, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1719 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601. F.3d 1342, 1346, 94 USPQ2d 1257, 1259 (Fed. Cir 2010)). The USPTO may focus its analysis “on dispositive factors, such as similarity of the marks and relatedness of the goods and services.” 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)); see TMEP §1207.01.
In this case, the following factors are the most relevant: similarity of the marks, similarity of the nature of the goods and services, and similarity of the trade channels of the goods and services. See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1361-62, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Dakin’s Miniatures Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1593, 1595-96 (TTAB 1999); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.
SIMILARITY OF 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 Davia, 110 USPQ2d 1810, 1812 (TTAB 2014) (citing In re 1st USA Realty Prof’ls, Inc., 84 USPQ2d 1581, 1586 (TTAB 2007)); In re White Swan Ltd., 8 USPQ2d 1534, 1535 (TTAB 1988)); TMEP §1207.01(b).
Applicant’s mark FERTIGLOBE and registrant’s mark FERTIGLOBAL are confusingly similar.
Applicant’s mark and registrant’s mark are similar in appearance, sound, meaning, and commercial impression. The marks share the first nine letters in identical succession, only differing by the applicant’s use of the letter “e” at the end of the mark (i.e. FERTIGLOBE) where the registrant uses the letters “al” (i.e. FERTIGLOBAL). Thus, the marks are similar in appearance and sound. Slight differences in the sound of similar marks will not avoid a likelihood of confusion. In re Energy Telecomm. & Elec. Ass’n, 222 USPQ 350, 351 (TTAB 1983); see In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1367, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1912 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
The marks are similar in meaning and commercial impression. Both the applicant’s mark and the registrant’s mark begin with the term “FERTI” which is a shortened form of the word “fertilizer,” meaning, a substance (such as manure or a chemical mixture) used to make soil more fertile. The second term in the applied-for mark is GLOBE, meaning, a spherical representation of the earth. The second term in the registered mark is GLOBAL, meaning, of, relating to, or involving the entire world. See attached merriam-webster.com definitions of FERTILIZER, GLOBE, and GLOBAL. Marks may be confusingly similar in appearance where similar terms or phrases or similar parts of terms or phrases appear in the compared marks and create a similar overall commercial impression. See Crocker Nat’l Bank v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 228 USPQ 689, 690-91 (TTAB 1986), aff’d sub nom. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 811 F.2d 1490, 1495, 1 USPQ2d 1813, 1817 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (finding COMMCASH and COMMUNICASH confusingly similar); In re Corning Glass Works, 229 USPQ 65, 66 (TTAB 1985) (finding CONFIRM and CONFIRMCELLS confusingly similar); In re Pellerin Milnor Corp., 221 USPQ 558, 560 (TTAB 1983) (finding MILTRON and MILLTRONICS confusingly similar); TMEP §1207.01(b)(ii)-(iii). Thus, the terms FERTIGLOBE and FERTIGLOBAL create the similar impression of fertilizer relating to the entire earth in each of the marks despite the differences in spelling of the second terms.
Additionally, the marks share the identical first term FERTI. Consumers are generally more inclined to focus on the first word, prefix, or syllable in any trademark or service mark. See Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 1372, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1692 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (finding similarity between VEUVE ROYALE and two VEUVE CLICQUOT marks in part because “VEUVE . . . remains a ‘prominent feature’ as the first word in the mark and the first word to appear on the label”); Century 21 Real Estate Corp. v. Century Life of Am., 970 F.2d 874, 876, 23 USPQ2d 1698, 1700 (Fed Cir. 1992) (finding similarity between CENTURY 21 and CENTURY LIFE OF AMERICA in part because “consumers must first notice th[e] identical lead word”); see also In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1303, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1049 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (finding “the identity of the marks’ two initial words is particularly significant because consumers typically notice those words first”). Thus, consumers are more likely to focus on the identical first term FERTI in each of the marks.
Furthermore, the applicant’s use of minor stylization and design elements does not obviate a finding of a likelihood of confusion. 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 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)). Here, it is unlikely that consumers would refer to the applied-for mark by the minor stylization and design elements, but instead are likely to refer to the mark by the wording. Thus, the wording is the dominant portion of the mark.
Therefore, although the applicant’s mark and registrant’s mark have minor differences, the marks are very similar and thus have the same overall commercial impression, and as a result, purchasers are likely to be confused as to the source of the applicant’s and registrant’s goods and services. Therefore, the marks are confusingly similar.
RELATEDNESS OF THE GOODS AND SERVICES
The goods and services are compared to determine whether they are similar, commercially related, or travel in the same trade channels. See Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1369-71, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1722-23 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Herbko Int’l, Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc., 308 F.3d 1156, 1165, 64 USPQ2d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2002); TMEP §§1207.01, 1207.01(a)(vi).
When analyzing an applicant’s and registrant’s goods and services for similarity and relatedness, that determination is based on the description of the goods and services in the application and registration at issue, not on extrinsic evidence of actual use. See Stone Lion Capital Partners, LP v. Lion Capital LLP, 746 F.3d 1317, 1323, 110 USPQ2d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Octocom Sys. Inc. v. Hous. Computers Servs. Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 942, 16 USPQ2d 1783, 1787 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Applicant’s goods “Fertilisers; nitrogen; urea; ammonia; diesel exhaust fluid” in International Class 001 are related to registrant’s goods “fertilizers for agricultural use, fertilizers for domestic use” in International Class 001.
Additionally, applicant’s services “wholesale service relating to fertilisers, nitrogen, urea, ammonia, diesel exhaust fluid” in International Class 035 are related to registrant’s goods “fertilizers for agricultural use, fertilizers for domestic use” in International Class 001.
The attached Internet evidence from andersonplantnutrient.com, nutrienagsolutions.com, newsom.com, and downtoearthdistributors.com establishes that the same entity commonly provides fertilizers and wholesale store services and markets the goods and services under the same mark and that the relevant goods and services are sold or provided through the same trade channels and used by the same classes of consumers in the same fields of use. Thus, applicant’s services 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).
Because the marks are confusingly similar and the goods and services are related, there is a likelihood of confusion between the marks. Therefore, registration is refused pursuant to Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.
IDENTIFICATION AND CLASSIFICATION AMENDMENT REQUIRED
Applicant must amend the identification to specify the nature of the wholesale activity that applicant provides (e.g., wholesale distributorships, wholesale services by direct solicitation by sales agents, or wholesale store services). If the services are in the nature of wholesale stores, direct solicitation, or distributorships, the identification should also indicate the field or type of goods offered through the wholesale services, e.g., “wholesale distributorships featuring {indicate specific field, e.g. auto parts, clothing},” “wholesale services by direct solicitation by sales agents in the field of {indicate specific field},” and “wholesale store services featuring {indicate specific field, e.g. auto parts, clothing, jewelry}.” See TMEP §§1301.01(a)(ii), 1402.11.
Applicant may adopt the wording below in International Class 35, if accurate.
Applicant may substitute the following wording, if accurate:
IC 001: Fertilizers; nitrogen; urea fertilizer; ammonia {specify purpose or use, e.g. for industrial purposes}; diesel exhaust fluid
IC 003: ammonia for cleaning purposes
IC 035: wholesale store services featuring fertilizers, nitrogen, urea fertilizer, ammonia, and diesel exhaust fluid
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.
CLARIFICATION OF THE NUMBER OF CLASSES FOR WHICH REGISTRATION IS SOUGHT REQUIRED
Therefore, applicant must either (1) restrict the application to the number of classes covered by the fees already paid, or (2) submit the fees for each additional class.
ADVISORY – MULTIPLE CLASS APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS
(1) List the goods and services by their international class number in consecutive numerical order, starting with the lowest numbered class.
(2) Submit a filing fee for each international class not covered by the fee(s) already paid (view the USPTO’s current fee schedule).
See 15 U.S.C. §§1051(b), 1112, 1126(e); 37 C.F.R. §§2.32(a)(6)-(7), 2.34(a)(2)-(3), 2.86(a); TMEP §§1403.01, 1403.02(c).
See an overview of the requirements for a Section 1(b) multiple-class application and how to satisfy the requirements online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form.
ENTITY CLARIFICATION REQUIRED
Applicant sets forth in the application the legal entity “limited company” and applicant’s address and country of organization as United Arab Emirates. The designation “limited company” is typically an acceptable entity designation in a U.S. application for applicants from Commonwealth countries. See TMEP §803.03(i). However, applicant has identified an address and/or country of organization that is not a Commonwealth country (see http://www.thecommonwealth.org/Internal/142227/members/).
Therefore, applicant must clarify the legal entity in the application. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.32(a)(3), 2.61(b); TMEP §803.03(i). Applicant may do so by (1) specifying the entity type that would be the equivalent of a “limited company” in the United States or (2) providing a description of the nature of the foreign entity that is applying. See TMEP §803.03(i).
RESPONSE GUIDELINES
For this application to proceed, applicant must explicitly address each refusal and 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.
Rebecca Coughlan
/Rebecca D. Coughlan/
Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 113
Phone: 571-272-4975
Email: rebecca.coughlan@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE