Offc Action Outgoing

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application

 

 

 

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:  October 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.

 

Section 2(d) Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion

 

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 5214678.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registration.

 

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.

 

In this case, applicant has applied to register VOGUE (and Design) for “Cigarettes; tobacco, raw and manufactured; roll your own tobacco; pipe tobacco; tobacco products, namely, smoking tobacco, cut tobacco, leaf tobacco, chewing tobacco, snuff tobacco, snus tobacco, pipe tobacco, and hand rolling tobacco; tobacco substitutes not for medical purposes; cigars; cigarillos; cigarette lighters; cigar lighters; matches; smokers' articles, namely, filter tubes, cigar relighting liquid solution, cigarette lighters not of precious metal, matches, ashtrays not of precious metal, pipes, cigarette holders, humidors, cigar cutters, tobacco pouches, pocket machines for rolling cigarettes; cigarette paper; cigarette tubes; cigarette filters; pocket apparatus for rolling cigarettes; hand held machines for injecting tobacco into paper tubes; electronic cigarettes; liquids for e-cigarettes, namely, liquid nicotine solutions for use in electronic cigarettes; tobacco products for the purpose of being heated, namely, sticks of tobacco and sticks of tobacco substitutes that are designed to be heated but not burned.”

 

Registrant’s mark is VOGUE VAPORS (Standard Characters) for “Electronic cigarette liquid (e-liquid) comprised of flavorings in liquid form used to refill electronic cigarette cartridges; Electronic cigarette liquid (e-liquid) comprised of propylene glycol; Electronic cigarette liquid (e-liquid) comprised of vegetable glycerin.”

 

Comparison 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).

 

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).

 

In this case, the marks contain the same dominant wording, namely, “VOGUE.”  The literal portion of applicant’s mark consists solely of the word “VOGUE”; registrant’s mark consists of the word “VOGUE” followed by the descriptive wording “VAPORS,” which has been disclaimed.  Because of this common wording, the marks are highly similar in sound, appearance, and overall commercial impression.  Attached is an excerpt from http://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=vogue with the definition of “vogue.”

 

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”).  “VOGUE” is the first word in registrant’s mark and the only wording in applicant’s mark.

 

Relatedness of the Goods

 

It is well-settled that the compared goods need not be identical or even competitive to find a likelihood of confusion.  See On-line Careline Inc. v. Am. Online Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 1086, 56 USPQ2d 1471, 1475 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Recot, Inc. v. Becton, 214 F.3d 1322, 1329, 54 USPQ2d 1894, 1898 (Fed. Cir. 2000); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).  They need only be “related in some manner and/or if the circumstances surrounding their marketing are such that they could give rise to the mistaken belief that [the goods] emanate from the same source.”  Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1369, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1722 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting 7-Eleven Inc. v. Wechsler, 83 USPQ2d 1715, 1724 (TTAB 2007)); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).

 

Moreover, where evidence shows that the goods at issue have complementary uses, and thus are often used together or otherwise purchased by the same purchasers for the same or related purposes, such goods have generally been found to be sufficiently related such that confusion would be likely if they are marketed under the same or similar marks.  See In re Martin’s Famous Pastry Shoppe, Inc., 748 F.2d 1565, 1567, 223 USPQ 1289, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (holding bread and cheese to be related because they are often used in combination and noting that “[s]uch complementary use has long been recognized as a relevant consideration in determining a likelihood of confusion”). 

 

In this case, registrant’s goods are liquids specifically designed for use in electronic cigarettes – “Electronic cigarette liquid (e-liquid) comprised of flavorings in liquid form used to refill electronic cigarette cartridges; Electronic cigarette liquid (e-liquid) comprised of propylene glycol; Electronic cigarette liquid (e-liquid) comprised of vegetable glycerin.”  Applicant’s goods include “liquids for e-cigarettes, namely, liquid nicotine solutions for use in electronic cigarettes.”  Although the electronic cigarette liquids do not have identical ingredients, the liquids are used “by the same purchasers for the same or related purposes.”  Moreover, applicant’s goods also include “electronic cigarettes.”  Registrant’s e-liquids are specifically designed to be used in electronic cigarettes.  Applicant’s electronic cigarettes and registrant’s e-liquids are “often used together or otherwise purchased by the same purchasers for the same or related purposes.”

 

With respect to a comparison of applicant’s traditional cigarette and tobacco products and accessories and registrant’s e-liquids, the attached Internet evidence, consisting of representative website excerpts from retailers that sell both e-liquids (registrant) and cigarette and tobacco products and accessories (applicant), establishes that the relevant goods 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 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).

 

Summary of the Refusal

 

The marks contain the same dominant wording and are highly similar in sound, appearance, and overall commercial impression.  The goods are related.  The similarities among the marks and the goods are so great as to create a likelihood of confusion among consumers.  The overriding concern is not only to prevent buyer confusion as to the source of the goods, but to protect the registrant from adverse commercial impact due to use of a similar mark by a newcomer.  See In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1208, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1690 (Fed. Cir. 1993).  Therefore, any doubt regarding a likelihood of confusion determination is resolved in favor of the registrant.  TMEP §1207.01(d)(i); see Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1265, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1003 (Fed. Cir. 2002); In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 464-65, 6 USPQ2d 1025, 1026 (Fed. Cir. 1988).

 

Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.

 

If applicant responds to the refusal, applicant also must respond to the requirements set forth below.

 

1.         Identification of Goods

 

a.         The wording “pipes” in the identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified because the specific type(s) of “pipes” has not been indicated.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.  Applicant may substitute the following wording, if accurate:  “tobacco pipes.”

 

b.         The wording “hand held machines for injecting tobacco into paper tubes” in the identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.  Applicant may substitute the following wording, if accurate:  “hand-held machines for injecting tobacco into paper cigarette tubes.”

 

c.         Applicant must clarify the identification of goods by indicating the purpose or use of the “tobacco products for the purpose of being heated, namely, sticks of tobacco and sticks of tobacco substitutes that are designed to be heated but not burned.”  See TMEP §1402.01.  Applicant may substitute the following wording, if accurate:  tobacco products for the purpose of being heated, namely, sticks of tobacco and sticks of tobacco substitutes that are designed to be heated but not burned for the purpose of inhalation

 

d.         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.

 

e.         Applicant may adopt the following identification of goods in International Class 34, if accurate:  Cigarettes; tobacco, raw and manufactured; roll your own tobacco; pipe tobacco; tobacco products, namely, smoking tobacco, cut tobacco, leaf tobacco, chewing tobacco, snuff tobacco, snus tobacco, pipe tobacco, and hand rolling tobacco; tobacco substitutes not for medical purposes; cigars; cigarillos; cigarette lighters; cigar lighters; matches; smokers' articles, namely, filter tubes, cigar relighting liquid solution, cigarette lighters not of precious metal, matches, ashtrays not of precious metal, tobacco pipes, cigarette holders, humidors, cigar cutters, tobacco pouches, pocket machines for rolling cigarettes; cigarette paper; cigarette tubes; cigarette filters; pocket apparatus for rolling cigarettes; hand-held machines for injecting tobacco into paper cigarette tubes; electronic cigarettes; liquids for e-cigarettes, namely, liquid nicotine solutions for use in electronic cigarettes; tobacco products for the purpose of being heated, namely, sticks of tobacco and sticks of tobacco substitutes that are designed to be heated but not burned for the purpose of inhalation.  See TMEP §1402.01.

 

f.          Applicant may amend the identification to clarify or limit the goods, but not to broaden or expand the goods beyond those in the original application or as acceptably amended.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06.  Generally, any deleted goods may not later be reinserted.  See TMEP §1402.07(e).

 

2.         Mark Description

 

Applicant must provide an amended description of the mark that includes all the literal and design elements and colors shown in the mark.  Specifically, the following elements and colors have been omitted:  the colors black and gray.  Furthermore, the mark description references “a rectangular background with shaded outline”; however, there is no “shaded outline” in the drawing of the mark.

 

A complete description must identify all the literal and design elements in the mark and specify where the colors appear in those elements.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.37, 2.52(b)(1); TMEP §§807.07(a) et seq.  If black, white, and/or gray are not being claimed as a color feature of the mark, applicant must exclude them from the color claim and include in the description a statement that black, white, and/or gray represent background, outlining, shading, and/or transparent areas and are not part of the mark.  See TMEP §807.07(d).

 

The following mark description is suggested, if accurate:

 

The mark consists of a gray rectangular background. In the gray rectangular background is a light blue rectangle that contains the black stylized wording “VOGUE” and a green circle to the right of the word “VOGUE”.

 

How to respond.  Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action.    

 

If applicant has any questions or needs assistance in responding to this Office action, please call or email the assigned examining attorney.

 

A prompt response to this Office action will expedite the handling of this matter.

 

 

 

/Barbara A. Gaynor/

Barbara A. Gaynor

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 115

571-272-9164

Barbara.Gaynor@uspto.gov

 

 

RESPONSE GUIDANCE

 

• Missing the response deadline to this letter will cause the application to abandon.  A response or notice of appeal must be received by the USPTO before midnight Eastern Time of the last day of the response period.  TEAS and ESTTA maintenance or unforeseen circumstances could affect an applicant’s ability to timely respond.  

 

• Responses signed by an unauthorized party are not accepted and can cause the application to abandon. 

 

• If needed, find contact information for the supervisor of the office or unit listed in the signature block.

 

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

 

USPTO OFFICIAL NOTICE

 

Office Action (Official Letter) has issued

on October 23, 2020 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 90046018

 

Your trademark application has been reviewed by a trademark examining attorney.  As part of that review, the assigned attorney has issued an official letter that you must respond to by the specified deadline or your application will be abandoned.  Please follow the steps below.

 

(1)  Read the official letter.

 

(2)  Direct questions about the contents of the Office action to the assigned attorney below. 

 

 

/Barbara A. Gaynor/

Barbara A. Gaynor

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 115

571-272-9164

Barbara.Gaynor@uspto.gov

 

Direct questions about navigating USPTO electronic forms, the USPTO website, the application process, the status of your application, and/or whether there are outstanding deadlines or documents related to your file to the Trademark Assistance Center (TAC).

 

(3)  Respond within 6 months (or earlier, if required in the Office action) from October 23, 2020, using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS).  The response must be received by the USPTO before midnight Eastern Time of the last day of the response period.  See the Office action for more information about how to respond

 

 

 

GENERAL GUIDANCE

·         Check the status of your application periodically in the Trademark Status & Document Retrieval (TSDR) database to avoid missing critical deadlines.

 

·         Update your correspondence email address, if needed, to ensure you receive important USPTO notices about your application.

 

·         Beware of misleading notices sent by private companies about your application.  Private companies not associated with the USPTO use public information available in trademark registrations to mail and email trademark-related offers and notices – most of which require fees.  All official USPTO correspondence will only be emailed from the domain “@uspto.gov.”