| To: | N.V. Organon (amy.van.eepoel@merck.com) |
| Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88678566 - VREE - N/A |
| Sent: | February 11, 2020 07:09:23 PM |
| Sent As: | ecom128@uspto.gov |
| Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 Attachment - 5 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
|
U.S. Application Serial No. 88678566
Mark: VREE
|
|
|
Correspondence Address: |
|
|
Applicant: N.V. Organon
|
|
|
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: February 11, 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.
· Amendment to Identification and Classification of Goods and Services Required
SECTION 2(D) - LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
The applicant applied for the mark VREE for pharmaceutical preparations (class 5); medical apparatus, devices, and instruments (class 10); downloadable software (class 9) and software services (class 42) for providing information, and provision of information (class 44) on various medical-related topics.
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.
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 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).
In the present case, applicant’s mark is VREE and the registered mark is VH VREE HEALTH. 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). The registrant disclaimed the wording “HEALTH”, which for its services is merely descriptive, and the registrant’s initial lettering, VH, is apt to be perceived by consumers as an initialization of the words VREE HEALTH. Thus, the dominant portion of registrant’s mark is VREE, which is identical to the wording in the applied-for mark.
Given that applicant’s mark is VREE and the registered mark is VH VREE HEALTH, applicant’s mark deletes wording from the registered mark. Although applicant’s mark does not contain the entirety of the registered mark, applicant’s mark is likely to appear to prospective purchasers as a shortened form of registrant’s mark. See In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 1348, 94 USPQ2d 1257, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting United States Shoe Corp., 229 USPQ 707, 709 (TTAB 1985)). Thus, merely omitting some of the wording from a registered mark may not overcome a likelihood of confusion. See In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 94 USPQ2d 1257; In re Optica Int’l, 196 USPQ 775, 778 (TTAB 1977); TMEP §1207.01(b)(ii)-(iii). In this case, applicant’s mark does not create a distinct commercial impression from the registered mark because it contains some of the wording in the registered mark and does not add any wording that would distinguish it from that mark.
As such, the marks are identical in part.
The examining attorney notes that the mark in the registration includes design elements. However, the presence of design elements in the registered mark does not significantly affect the likelihood of confusion analysis. 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)).
Similarly, the presence of stylization in the registration does not significantly affect the likelihood of confusion analysis either. A mark in typed or standard characters (e.g., applicant’s mark) may be displayed in any lettering style; the rights reside in the wording or other literal element and not in any particular display or rendition. See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1363, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1909 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 1348, 94 USPQ2d 1257, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010); 37 C.F.R. §2.52(a); TMEP §1207.01(c)(iii). Thus, a mark presented in stylized characters and/or with a design element generally will not avoid likelihood of confusion with a mark in typed or standard characters because the word portion could be presented in the same manner of display. See, e.g., In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d at 1363, 101 USPQ2d at 1909; Squirtco v. Tomy Corp., 697 F.2d 1038, 1041, 216 USPQ 937, 939 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (stating that “the argument concerning a difference in type style is not viable where one party asserts rights in no particular display”).
Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, the marks are considered similar for likelihood of confusion purposes.
Relatedness of the Goods and/or Services
In this case, applicant’s goods/services are for pharmaceutical preparations (class 5); medical apparatus, devices, and instruments (class 10); downloadable software (class 9) and software services (class 42) for providing information and information (class 44) on various medical-related topics. The registrant’s goods are software for enabling the exchange of information regarding patient management, treatment, and monitoring (class 42) as well as providing health care information (class 44). Given that “health care information” would be expected to include information concerning medical apparatus, pharmaceuticals, and so forth, the registrant’s services and applicant’s goods and services are highly related.
Therefore, the goods/services are considered related for likelihood of confusion purposes.
Considering all of the above, the applied-for mark is refused registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d).
The trademark examiner notes that the listed owner of the registration is Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation, and applicant’s attorney identifies herself as working for the Office of General Counsel of Merck & Company, suggesting a connection between applicant N.V. Organon and Merck Sharp & Dohme. If the mark in the cited registration is owned by applicant, applicant may provide evidence of ownership of the mark by satisfying one of the following:
(1) Record the assignment with the USPTO’s Assignment Recordation Branch (ownership transfer documents such as assignments can be filed online at http://etas.uspto.gov) and promptly notify the trademark examining attorney that the assignment has been duly recorded.
(2) Submit copies of documents evidencing the chain of title.
(3) Submit the following statement, verified with an affidavit or signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20: “Applicant is the owner of U.S. Registration No. 4446751” To provide this statement using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), use the “Response to Office Action” form; answer “yes” to wizard questions #3 and #10; then, continuing on to the next portion of the form, in the “Additional Statement(s)” section, find “Active Prior Registration(s)” and insert the U.S. registration numbers in the data fields; and follow the instructions within the form for signing. The form must be signed twice; a signature is required both in the “Declaration Signature” section and in the “Response Signature” section.
TMEP §812.01; see 15 U.S.C. §1060; 37 C.F.R. §§2.193(e)(1), 3.25, 3.73(a)-(b); TMEP §502.02(a).
Recording a document with the Assignment Recordation Branch does not constitute a response to an Office action. TMEP §503.01(d).
AMENDMENT TO IDENTIFICATION CLASSIFICATION OF GOODS AND SERVICES REQUIRED
The wording “over the counter preparations and products” in the identification of goods for International Class 5 must be clarified because it is too broad and could include goods in other international classes. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03. In particular, this wording could encompass support bandages in class 10, bandages for skin wounds in class 5, disinfectants in class 5, razors in class 8, walking sticks in class 18, etc. Similarly, the wording “Providing information in the fields of pharmaceuticals” in applicant’s class 44 services is too broad because it could encompass “Providing information in the field of selling pharmaceuticals” in class 35, “providing technical information in the field of pharmaceutical manufacturing” in class 40, and “medical and scientific research information in the field of pharmaceuticals and clinical trials” in class 42 amongst other possibilities.
Applicant uses the wording “a house mark” in conjunction with its class 5 and 10 goods. Although a house mark is typically used on a wide variety of goods, the identification must sufficiently indicate goods that can be classified in accordance with the international classification system. TMEP §1402.03(b).
Applicant may substitute the wording presented further below.
The wording “pharmaceutical preparations” and “over the counter preparations” in class 5 is indefinite and must be clarified. ” This wording is indefinite because it does not make clear the exact nature/subject matter/purpose/function of the goods, such as for treating diabetes, treating skin wounds, etc. 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01. Similarly, the wording “a house mark for surgical and medical apparatus, devices and instruments” in class 10 is indefinite for failing to properly indicate the particular type or purpose of these goods. Specifically, applicant must specify its function/purpose/field of use/subject matter/particular type, such as for measuring skin hydration, or as implantable ports, etc. so as to clarify the exact nature/purpose/function of these goods.
Applicant may substitute the following wording, if accurate (additions in bold, deletions in strikethrough, and information in brackets intended to offer guidance):
Class 5: A house mark for pharmaceutical preparations for _____ {state purpose, e.g., treating diabetes, treating allergies, skin wounds, etc.} and
over the counter preparations, namely, ______ for _______ {must specify the preparation and its purpose} and products
Class 9: Downloadable software in the nature of a mobile application for providing information on pharmaceuticals, medicines, medical devices, health and wellness
Class 10: A house mark for surgical instruments, and medical apparatus, and devices and instruments; medical apparatus, namely, _____ {state type or purpose, e.g., implantable ports, for measuring
skin hydration, etc.}
Class 18: Walking sticks
Class 35: Providing information in the field of selling pharmaceuticals
Class 40: Providing technical information in the field of pharmaceutical manufacturing
Class 42: Providing online, non-downloadable software for providing and managing health and healthcare information; scientific research for medical purposes; providing medical and scientific research information in the field of pharmaceuticals and clinical trials
Class 44: Providing medical and scientific research information in the fields of pharmaceuticals, medicines,
and medical devices, ; Providing information in the fields of health and wellness
See TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03.
If applicant adds a class to the current application, applicant must comply with the multi-class application requirements discussed later in this Office action.
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.
MULTIPLE-CLASS APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS
(1) List the goods and/or 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). The application identifies goods and/or services that are classified in at least 8 classes; however, applicant submitted a fee(s) sufficient for only 5 classes. Applicant must either submit the filing fees for the classes not covered by the submitted fees or restrict the application to the number of classes covered by the fees already paid.
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 Sections 1(b) and 44 multiple-class application and how to satisfy the requirements online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form.
Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusals by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration. However, if applicant responds to the refusal(s), applicant must also respond to the requirements set forth below.
COPY OF FOREIGN REGISTRATION REQUIRED (DUAL FILING BASIS)
The application specifies both an intent to use basis under Trademark Act Section 1(b) and a claim of priority under Section 44(d) based on a foreign application. See 15 U.S.C. §§1051(b), 1126(d); 37 C.F.R. §2.34(a)(2), (a)(4). However, no copy of a foreign registration has been provided even though the application indicates applicant’s intent to rely on Section 44(e) as an additional basis for registration. See 15 U.S.C. §1126(e).
An application with a Section 44(e) basis must include a true copy, photocopy, certification, or certified copy of a foreign registration from an applicant’s country of origin. 15 U.S.C. §1126(e); 37 C.F.R. §2.34(a)(3)(ii); TMEP §§1004, 1004.01, 1016. In addition, an applicant’s country of origin must be a party to a convention or treaty relating to trademarks to which the United States is also a party, or must extend reciprocal registration rights to nationals of the United States by law. 15 U.S.C. §1126(b); TMEP §§1002.01, 1004.
Therefore, applicant must provide a copy of the foreign registration from applicant’s country of origin when it becomes available. TMEP §1003.04(a). A copy of a foreign registration must consist of a document issued to an applicant by, or certified by, the intellectual property office in applicant’s country of origin. TMEP §1004.01. If applicant’s country of origin does not issue registrations or Madrid Protocol certificates of extension of protection, applicant may submit a copy of the Madrid Protocol international registration that shows that protection of the international registration has been extended to applicant’s country of origin. TMEP §1016. In addition, applicant must also provide an English translation if the foreign registration is not written in English. 37 C.F.R. §2.34(a)(3)(ii); TMEP §1004.01(a)-(b). The translation should be signed by the translator. TMEP §1004.01(b).
If the foreign registration has not yet issued, or applicant requires additional time to procure a copy of the foreign registration (and English translation, as appropriate), applicant should so inform the trademark examining attorney and request that the U.S. application be suspended until a copy of the foreign registration is available. TMEP §§716.02(b), 1003.04(b).
If applicant cannot satisfy the requirements of a Section 44(e) basis, applicant may request that the mark be approved for publication based solely on the Section 1(b) basis. See 15 U.S.C. §§1051(b), 1126(e); 37 C.F.R. §2.35(b)(1); TMEP §§806.02(f), 806.04(b), 1003.04(b). Although the mark may be approved for publication on the Section 1(b) basis, it will not register until an acceptable allegation of use has been filed. See 15 U.S.C. §1051(c)-(d); 37 C.F.R. §§2.76, 2.88; TMEP §1103. Please note that, if the U.S. application satisfied the requirements of Section 44(d) as of the U.S. application filing date, applicant may retain the priority filing date under Section 44(d) without perfecting the Section 44(e) basis, provided there is a continuing valid basis for registration. See 37 C.F.R. §2.35(b)(3)-(4); TMEP §§806.02(f), 806.04(b).
Alternatively, applicant has the option to amend the application to rely solely on the Section 44(e) basis and request deletion of the Section 1(b) basis. See 37 C.F.R. §2.35(b)(1); TMEP §806.04. The foreign registration alone may serve as the basis for obtaining a U.S. registration. See 37 C.F.R. §2.34(a)(3); TMEP §806.01(d).
ENGLISH TRANSLATION REQUIRED
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.
/James Prizant/
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 128
(571) 270-3068
James.Prizant@USPTO.GOV
RESPONSE GUIDANCE
