To: | Markham Vineyards (TM-PDX@STOEL.COM) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88726774 - MARKHAM NAPA VALLEY VINEYARDS - 48296-314 |
Sent: | January 06, 2020 03:36:50 PM |
Sent As: | ecom109@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 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88726774
Mark: MARKHAM NAPA VALLEY VINEYARDS
|
|
Correspondence Address: 760 SW NINTH AVENUE, SUITE 3000
|
|
Applicant: Markham Vineyards
|
|
Reference/Docket No. 48296-314
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 06, 2020
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.
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.
Section 2(d) – Likelihood of Confusion
Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 3704740 and 4853438. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the attached registrations.
Facts
Applicant’s mark is MARKHAM NAPA VALLEY VINEYARDS for “Alcoholic beverages, except beer; Wine” in International Class 033.
The registrant’s marks are:
NAPA GREEN (Registration No. 3704740) for “wines derived from grapes grown in Napa County, California, labeled and advertised in compliance with U.S. laws for either the Napa County appellation of origin or the Napa Valley American Viticultural Area appellation of origin,” in International Class A and “promoting sustainable winery practices in Napa County, California to protect the environmental quality of the region by wineries located in Napa County, California; promoting sustainable grape-growing practices in Napa County, California to protect the environmental quality of the region by grape growers located in Napa County, California,” in International Class B; and
NAPA VALLEY (Registration No. 4853438) for “wine.” In International Class A.
Mark
Applicant is attempting to register the mark MARKHAM NAPA VALLEY VINEYARDS. The registered marks feature the term NAPA or NAPA VALLEY. The term NAPA is the equivalent of NAPA VALLEY (see attached references that indicate that NAPA is the gateway to the wine train in NAPA VALLEY).
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).
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).
Importantly, each mark calls to mind a connection to NAPA VALLEY or NAPA. The fact that they include additional matter does not alter this impression.
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 Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1305, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1050 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing In re Dixie Rests., 105 F.3d 1405, 1407, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533-34 (Fed. Cir. 1997)); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii). Greater weight is often given to this dominant feature when determining whether marks are confusingly similar. See In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d at 1305, 128 USPQ2d at 1050 (citing In re Dixie Rests., 105 F.3d at 1407, 41 USPQ2d at 1533-34).
The term GREEN in the registered mark merely informs the consumer that the wine is made using sustainable practices (see attached evidence of wine that is made with organic, sustainable, and eco-friendly wine practices).
Compared in their entireties and giving various elements appropriate weight, the marks as a whole are sufficiently similar to cause confusion or mistake as a source of the goods.
Goods
Applicant is attempted to register the term MARKHAM NAPA VALLEY VINEYARDS for “Alcoholic beverages, except beer; Wine” in International Class 033. The applicant’s and registered marks are all feature wine.
Determining likelihood of confusion is based on the description of the goods and/or services stated in the application and registration at issue, not on extrinsic evidence of actual use. See In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1307, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1052 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1325, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1749 (Fed. Cir. 2017)).
In this case, the application use(s) broad wording to describe “Alcoholic beverages, except beer”, which presumably encompasses all goods of the type described, including registrants’ more narrow wine. 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 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)).
The applicant’s broad identification of goods encompasses the registrants’ narrower identification of goods.
Disclaimer
In this case, applicant must disclaim the wording “NAPA VALLEY VINEYARDS” because it is not inherently distinctive. These unregistrable term(s) are at best merely descriptive and primarily geographically descriptive of applicant’s goods.
The nondistinctive wording “VINEYARDS” merely describes an ingredient, quality, characteristic, function, feature, purpose, or use of applicant’s goods and/or services. 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).
The term VINEYARD is defined as “a farm that grows grapes and produces wine” (see attached). Applicant’s wine and other non-alcoholic beverages are presumably made with grapes grown in a VINEYARD. Accordingly, the wording merely describes a feature of the goods.
In addition, the nondistinctive wording “NAPA VALLEY” is primarily geographically descriptive of the origin of applicant’s goods. See 15 U.S.C. §§1052(e)(2); In re Societe Generale des Eaux Minerales de Vittel S.A., 824 F.2d 957, 959, 3 USPQ2d 1450, 1451-52 (Fed. Cir. 1987); TMEP §§1210.01(a), 1210.06(a), 1213.03(a).
The attached evidence from napavalley.com and napavalley.org shows that NAPA VALLEY is a generally known geographic place or location. See TMEP §§1210.02 et seq. The goods for which applicant seeks registration originate in this geographic place or location as shown by applicant’s address. See TMEP §1210.03. Because the goods originate in this place or location, a public association of the goods with the place is presumed. See In re Hollywood Lawyers Online, 110 USPQ2d 1852, 1858 (TTAB 2014) (citing In re Spirits of New Merced, LLC, 85 USPQ2d 1614, 1621 (TTAB 2007)); TMEP §§1210.02(a) 1210.04.
Applicant may respond to this issue by submitting a disclaimer in the following format:
No claim is made to the exclusive right to use “NAPA VALLEY VINEYARDS” 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.
How to respond. Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action.
/Christina M Sobral/
Christina Sobral
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 109
Christina.Sobral@uspto.gov
571.272.5703
RESPONSE GUIDANCE