To: | Plant Therapy LLC (mbryant@planttherapy.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88743248 - BALANCE - N/A |
Sent: | March 30, 2020 10:24:38 PM |
Sent As: | ecom117@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 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88743248
Mark: BALANCE
|
|
Correspondence Address: |
|
Applicant: Plant Therapy 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: March 30, 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.
Prior Conflicting Applications
The trademark examining attorney searched the USPTO database of registered and pending marks and found no conflicting marks that would bar registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d). 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); TMEP §704.02. However, marks in prior-filed pending applications may present a bar to registration of applicant’s mark.
The filing dates of pending U.S. Application Serial Nos. 86626679 and 88501066 precede applicant’s filing date. See attached referenced applications. If one or more of the marks in the referenced applications register, applicant’s mark may be refused registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d) because of a likelihood of confusion with the registered mark(s). See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); 37 C.F.R. §2.83; TMEP §§1208 et seq. Therefore, upon receipt of applicant’s response to this Office action, action on this application may be suspended pending final disposition of the earlier-filed referenced 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.
Likelihood of Confusion
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).
Applicant seeks to register the mark BALANCE for “Essential oils; Scented oils”.
The Registrant in U.S. Registration no. 2800200 owns the mark BOTANICAL BALANCE for use with “cosmetics, non-medicated skin care preparations, hair care preparations, essential oils for personal use, perfumes, colognes, flower essences and flower water for use as refreshers”.
The Registrant in U.S. Registration no. 4751689 owns the mark dōTERRA BALANCE for use with “Essential oils; Essential oils for aromatherapy use; Essential oils for household use; Essential oils for personal use; Natural essential oils”.
The Registrant in U.S. Registration no. 6010803 owns the mark UNIVERSAL BALANCE BY SOL stylized and design for use with goods and services including “Aromatic essential oils for personal use; Aromatic preparations, namely, cream, lotion, and body spray; Bar soap; Body cream; Essential oils for personal use; Essential oils for use in manufacturing of spiritual products; Essential oils for use in the manufacture of scented products for personal use; Essential oils for use in aromatherapy; Liquid bath soaps; Naturally handmade non-medicated soap bars; Perfumed soaps; Scented body lotions and creams” and “Candles; Candles containing stones, jewelry, petals, spices, and essential or scented oils; Candles for spiritual ceremonies”.
With respect to U.S. Registration nos. 2800200, 4751689 and 6010803, the examining attorney finds that each cited mark BOTANICAL BALANCE, dōTERRA BALANCE and UNIVERSAL BALANCE BY SOL stylized and design each share the identical term BALANCE with the applicant’s mark BALANCE.
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).
Because BALANCE is the only term in the applicant’s mark and it is the dominant feature, consumers may confuse it as being the source of the cited marks which share the term BALANCE. Thus the marks are overall confusingly similar and impart a similar commercial impression.
In the second step of the analysis, the examining attorney finds that the applicant’s goods and the cited registrants’ goods are the same. The applicant and each cited registrant all provide essential oils. When analyzing an applicant’s and registrant’s goods and/or services for similarity and relatedness, that determination is based on the description of the goods and/or 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)).
In this case, the goods and/or services in the application and registration(s) are identical. Therefore, it is presumed that the channels of trade and class(es) of purchasers are the same for these goods and/or services. See Cai v. Diamond Hong, Inc., 901 F.3d 1367, 1372, 127 USPQ2d 1797, 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods are related.
Because the marks share the same dominant term BALANCE and the goods are the same, the examining attorney refuses registration of the mark under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.
Applicant May Respond
Although the examining attorney has refused registration, the applicant may respond to the refusal to register by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.
Pro Se Applicant
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.
Because of the legal technicalities and strict deadlines of the trademark application process, applicant is encouraged to hire a private attorney who specializes in trademark matters to assist in this process. The assigned trademark examining attorney can provide only limited assistance explaining the content of an Office action and the application process. USPTO staff cannot provide legal advice or statements about an applicant’s legal rights. TMEP §§705.02, 709.06. See Hiring a U.S.-licensed trademark attorney for more information.
If the applicant has any questions or needs assistance in responding to this Office action, please call or e-mail the assigned examining attorney.
How to respond. Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action.
/D. Beryl Gardner/
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 117
571-272-9162 (O)
571-273-9162 (F)
beryl.gardner@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE