To: | The Scoular Company (gderrick@bairdholm.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88698444 - PETSOURCE BY SCOULAR - N/A |
Sent: | February 19, 2020 11:15:57 AM |
Sent As: | ecom123@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. 88698444
Mark: PETSOURCE BY SCOULAR
|
|
Correspondence Address:
|
|
Applicant: The Scoular Company
|
|
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 19, 2020
SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
Standard of Analysis for Section 2(d) Refusal
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.
Facts
Applicant has applied to register the mark PETSOURCE BY SCOULAR and design for use on “food for animals” in International Class 31.
U.S. Registration No. 5727647 for the mark PETSOURCE in standard characters is used in connection with “Dietary supplements for pets; Nutritional supplements for pets” in International Class 5.
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)), aff’d per curiam, 777 F. App’x 516, 2019 BL 343921 (Fed. Cir. 2019); TMEP §1207.01(b).
In this case, applicant's mark, PETSOURCE BY SCOULAR, is confusingly similar to registrant’s mark, PETSOURCE, because the marks are highly similar in sound, appearance, connotation, and commercial impression. Specifically, the marks share the wording PETSOURCE, and this shared term creates strong similarities between the marks in terms of sound, appearance, and connotation.
The additional wording “BY SCOULAR” in applicant’s mark does not distinguish the marks because this additional wording does not add enough to the overall commercial impression of the mark and because registrant’s mark is entirely incorporated into applicant’s. Incorporating the entirety of one mark within another does not obviate the similarity between the compared marks, as in the present case, nor does it overcome a likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d). See Wella Corp. v. Cal. Concept Corp., 558 F.2d 1019, 1022, 194 USPQ 419, 422 (C.C.P.A. 1977) (finding CALIFORNIA CONCEPT and surfer design and CONCEPT confusingly similar); Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Jos. E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., 526 F.2d 556, 557, 188 USPQ 105, 106 (C.C.P.A. 1975) (finding BENGAL LANCER and design and BENGAL confusingly similar); In re Integrated Embedded, 120 USPQ2d 1504, 1513 (TTAB 2016) (finding BARR GROUP and BARR confusingly similar); In re Mr. Recipe, LLC, 118 USPQ2d 1084, 1090 (TTAB 2016) (finding JAWS DEVOUR YOUR HUNGER and JAWS confusingly similar); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iii). In the present case, the marks are identical in part.
Ultimately, applicant’s mark is likely to cause confusion with registrant’s mark because the similarities in sound, appearance, and connotation create the same overall commercial impression in the minds of consumers. Thus, the marks are confusingly similar.
Relatedness of Goods
The application identifies “food for animals” in International Class 31.
U.S. Registration No. 5727647 for the mark PETSOURCE in standard characters is used in connection with “Dietary supplements for pets; Nutritional supplements for pets” in International Class 5.
In the present case, applicant’s goods are related to registrant’s goods because the same entities that provide food for animals also commonly provide supplements for pets, and these goods are all marketed together to consumers under a common mark. Moreover, these goods are sold through the same channels of trade and used by the same class of consumers in the same fields of use.
The attached Internet evidence consists of websites for third-party providers of both food for animals and supplements for pets.
http://www.hartz.com/small-animal-products/food-diet/
http://www.hartz.com/product/hartz-multivitamin-soft-chews-for-dogs/
http://bixbipet.com/supplements
This evidence establishes that the same entity commonly manufactures the relevant goods and markets those goods under the same mark. Therefore, applicant’s 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).
Therefore, because the marks are confusingly similar and the goods are closely related, purchasers encountering these goods are likely to believe, mistakenly, that they emanate from a common source. Accordingly, there is a likelihood of confusion and registration is refused pursuant to Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.
Response to Section 2(d) Likelihood of Confusion Refusal
Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.
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.
How to respond. Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action.
/Ankhi Lindemyer/
Ankhi Lindemyer
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 123
(571) 270-0254
ankhi.lindemyer@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE