United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 90108694
Mark: ENDURANCE
|
|
Correspondence Address: |
|
Applicant: Envisage Sport Ltd.
|
|
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: December 10, 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.
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. 1148634. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the attached registration.
Applicant has applied to register the mark ENDURANCE, for use with Beverages made of tea; Coffee; Coffee and coffee substitutes; Coffee and artificial coffee; Coffee and tea; Coffee based beverages; Coffee beans; Coffee beverages with milk; Coffee capsules containing coffee for brewing; Coffee capsules, filled; Coffee drinks; Coffee enhanced with amino acids; Coffee enhanced with energy supplements; Coffee enhanced with vitamins; Coffee enhanced with MCT oil; Coffee essences; Coffee essences for use as substitutes for coffee; Coffee extracts; Coffee extracts for use as substitutes for coffee; Coffee pods; Coffee pods, filled; Coffee substitutes; Coffee substitutes; Coffee, tea, cocoa and artificial coffee; Coffee-based beverage containing milk; Coffee-based beverages; Coffee-based drinks; Coffee-based iced beverages; Coffee-based snack foods; Instant black tea; Instant green tea; Instant Oolong tea; Instant tea; Instant white tea; Artificial coffee; Artificial coffee and tea; Beverages made of coffee; Beverages with a coffee base; Caffeine-free coffee; Chocolate-based beverages; Cocoa-based beverages; Coffee; Decaffeinated coffee; Espresso drinks; Frozen coffee drinks; Grain-based beverages; Grain-based food beverages; Green coffee; Ground coffee beans; Herbal food beverages; Ice cream drinks; Iced coffee; Instant coffee; Powdered coffee in drip bags; Preparations for making coffee-based beverages; Prepared coffee and coffee-based beverages; Roasted coffee beans; Semi-frozen coffee drinks; Tea-based beverages; Tea-based beverages also containing vitamins; Tea-based beverages also containing MCT oil; Tea-based beverages also containing amino acids; Tea-based beverages also containing energy supplements; Vegan coffee-based beverages; Vegetal preparations for use as coffee substitutes. The registered mark is ENDURANCE, for use with Dietary Food.
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.
Comparison of 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 the present case, applicant’s mark is ENDURANCE and registrant’s mark is ENDURANCE. These marks are identical in appearance, sound, and meaning, “and have the potential to be used . . . in exactly the same manner.” In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 116 USPQ2d 1406, 1411 (TTAB 2015), aff’d, 866 F.3d 1315, 123 USPQ2d 1744 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Additionally, because they are identical, these marks are likely to engender the same connotation and overall commercial impression when considered in connection with applicant’s and registrant’s respective goods and/or services. Id.
Therefore, the marks are confusingly similar.
Comparison of Goods/Services
The goods and/or services are compared to determine whether they are similar, commercially related, or travel in the same trade channels. See Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1369-71, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1722-23 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Herbko Int’l, Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc., 308 F.3d 1156, 1165, 64 USPQ2d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2002); TMEP §§1207.01, 1207.01(a)(vi). The compared goods and/or services 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 and/or services] 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).
Applicant offers various beverages with nutritional benefits, while registrant offers various foods with nutritional benefits. The attached Internet evidence, consisting of dictionary evidence and third party discussions of dietetic food, establishes that the goods are similar or complementary in terms of purpose or function. Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods and/or services 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).
Because the applied-for mark and cited mark are confusingly similar to one another, and the goods and/or services with which they are used are related to one another, applicant’s mark is refused registration based on a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 1148634.
Applicant should note the following additional ground for refusal.
SECTION 2(e)(1) REFUSAL - MERELY DESCRIPTIVE, WITH GENERICNESS ADVISORY
Registration is refused because the applied-for mark merely describes a feature of applicant’s goods and/or services. Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1); see TMEP §§1209.01(b), 1209.03 et seq.
Applicant has applied to register the mark ENDURANCE, for use with Beverages made of tea; Coffee; Coffee and coffee substitutes; Coffee and artificial coffee; Coffee and tea; Coffee based beverages; Coffee beans; Coffee beverages with milk; Coffee capsules containing coffee for brewing; Coffee capsules, filled; Coffee drinks; Coffee enhanced with amino acids; Coffee enhanced with energy supplements; Coffee enhanced with vitamins; Coffee enhanced with MCT oil; Coffee essences; Coffee essences for use as substitutes for coffee; Coffee extracts; Coffee extracts for use as substitutes for coffee; Coffee pods; Coffee pods, filled; Coffee substitutes; Coffee substitutes; Coffee, tea, cocoa and artificial coffee; Coffee-based beverage containing milk; Coffee-based beverages; Coffee-based drinks; Coffee-based iced beverages; Coffee-based snack foods; Instant black tea; Instant green tea; Instant Oolong tea; Instant tea; Instant white tea; Artificial coffee; Artificial coffee and tea; Beverages made of coffee; Beverages with a coffee base; Caffeine-free coffee; Chocolate-based beverages; Cocoa-based beverages; Coffee; Decaffeinated coffee; Espresso drinks; Frozen coffee drinks; Grain-based beverages; Grain-based food beverages; Green coffee; Ground coffee beans; Herbal food beverages; Ice cream drinks; Iced coffee; Instant coffee; Powdered coffee in drip bags; Preparations for making coffee-based beverages; Prepared coffee and coffee-based beverages; Roasted coffee beans; Semi-frozen coffee drinks; Tea-based beverages; Tea-based beverages also containing vitamins; Tea-based beverages also containing MCT oil; Tea-based beverages also containing amino acids; Tea-based beverages also containing energy supplements; Vegan coffee-based beverages; Vegetal preparations for use as coffee substitutes.
Attached is various evidence showing that ENDURANCE means the ability to withstand hardship or adversity, particularly in a physical capacity. Also attached are third party registrations showing that this wording is also commonly used in connection with related goods and services to indicate that a supplement product helps the consumer improve their endurance. Third-party registrations featuring goods and/or services the same as or similar to applicant’s goods and/or services are probative evidence on the issue of descriptiveness where the relevant word or term is disclaimed, registered under Trademark Act Section 2(f) based on acquired distinctiveness, or registered on the Supplemental Register. E.g., In re Morinaga Nyugyo Kabushiki Kaisha, 120 USPQ2d 1738, 1745 (TTAB 2016) (quoting Inst. Nat’l des Appellations D’Origine v. Vintners Int’l Co., 958 F.2d 1574, 1581-82, 22 USPQ2d 1190, 1196 (Fed. Cir. 1992)); In re Box Solutions Corp., 79 USPQ2d 1953, 1955 (TTAB 2006).
Applicant should note the following additional ground for refusal.
FAILURE TO FUNCTION
The applied-for mark, as shown on the specimen, does not function as a trademark because it appears embedded within the text of the front of the packaging, next to the wording “PRE-WORKOUT COFFEE”. Both the wording ENDURANCE and PRE-WORKOUT COFFEE are merely informational matter describing the nature of the supplements offered under the ENVISAGE SPORT LIMITED BRAND mark, and do not function as source-indicators for the goods. The same is true of the individual packaging, which shows the wording in very small font at one end of the serving package, at the bottom of the phrase ENERGY STAMINA ENDURANCE. This use only confirms that these are three benefits of the supplement offered under the ENVISAGE SPORT LIMITED BRAND mark, and this wording does not function as source-indicators for the goods.
Not every designation that appears on a product or its packaging functions as a trademark, even though it may have been adopted with the intent to do so. See In re Peace Love World Live, LLC, 127 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re Pro-Line Corp., 28 USPQ2d 1141, 1142 (TTAB 1993)). A designation can only be registered when purchasers would be likely to regard it as a source-indicator for the goods. See In re Manco, Inc., 24 USPQ2d 1938, 1941 (TTAB 1992) (citing In re Remington Prods. Inc., 3 USPQ2d 1714, 1715 (TTAB 1987)); TMEP §1202.
(1) Submit a different specimen (a verified “substitute” specimen) that (a) was in actual use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application or prior to the filing of an amendment to allege use and (b) shows proper trademark use for the goods in the application or amendment to allege use. A “verified substitute specimen” is a specimen that is accompanied by the following statement made in a signed affidavit or supported by a declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20: “The substitute (or new, or originally submitted, if appropriate) specimen(s) was/were in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application or prior to the filing of the amendment to allege use.” The substitute specimen cannot be accepted without this statement.
Examples of specimens. Specimens for goods include a photograph of (1) the actual goods bearing the mark; (2) an actual container, packaging, tag or label for the goods bearing the mark; or (3) a point-of-sale display showing the mark directly associated with the goods. See 37 C.F.R. §2.56(b)(1), (c); TMEP §904.03(a)-(m). A webpage specimen submitted as a display associated with the goods must show the mark in association with a picture or textual description of the goods and include information necessary for ordering the goods. TMEP §904.03(i); see 37 C.F.R. §2.56(b)(1), (c). Any webpage printout or screenshot submitted as a specimen must include the webpage’s URL and the date it was accessed or printed on the specimen itself, within the TEAS form that submits the specimen, or in a verified statement under 37 C.F.R. §2.20 or 28 U.S.C. §1746 in a later-filed response. See 37 C.F.R. §2.56(c); TMEP §904.03(i).
(2) Amend the filing basis to intent to use under Section 1(b) for which no specimen is required before publication. See TMEP §806.03(c). This includes withdrawing an amendment to allege use, if one was filed. This option will later necessitate additional fee(s) and filing requirements, including a specimen.
To amend the basis from Section 1(a) to Section 1(b), applicant must submit the following statement, verified with an affidavit or signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20: “Applicant has a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce and had a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce as of the application filing date.” 37 C.F.R. §2.34(a)(2); TMEP §806.01(b); see 15 U.S.C. §1051(b); 37 C.F.R. §2.35(b)(1).
To withdraw an amendment to allege use, applicant must make a statement in the record requesting that the amendment to allege use be withdrawn.
For more information about the response options above and instructions on how to submit a different specimen using the online Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form, see the Specimen webpage.
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.
/Laura Golden/
/Laura Golden/
Examining Attorney
Law Office 103
(571) 272-3928
laura.golden@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE