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 28, 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.

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. 5225126, 0711360, 1459451, 1718557, 2200141, 2158371, 2439162, 2507566, 2537024, 2648617, 4805818, 5557567, 3791141, 4071014, 4147136, 3169796, 3321903, 3321906, 3407395, 4572336, 4568565, 4349104, and 5073771.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registrations.

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).  Any evidence of record related to those factors need be considered; however, “not all of the DuPont factors are relevant or of similar weight in every case.”  In re Guild Mortg. Co., 912 F.3d 1376, 1379, 129 USPQ2d 1160, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting In re Dixie Rests., Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 1406, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533 (Fed. Cir. 1997)).

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. 

The test for determining likelihood of confusion is the same for certification marks – the du Pont analysis.  In re Accelerate s.a.l., 101 USPQ2d 2047, 2049 (TTAB 2012) (quoting Motion Picture Ass’n of Am., Inc. v. Respect Sportswear, Inc., 83 USPQ2d 1555, 1559-60 (TTAB 2007)); see In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973).  However, because a certification mark owner does not use the mark itself, the likelihood of confusion analysis is based on a comparison of the mark as applied to the goods and/or services of the certification mark users, including the channels of trade and classes of purchasers.  In re Accelerate s.a.l., 101 USPQ2d at 2049 (quoting Motion Picture Ass’n of Am., Inc. v. Respect Sportswear, Inc., 83 USPQ2d at 1559-60); see also Jos. S. Cohen & Sons Co. v. Hearst Magazines, Inc., 220 F.2d 763, 765, 105 USPQ 269, 271 (C.C.P.A. 1955).

In this case, the applied-for mark, JOSE CUERVO JOSE CUERVO ESPECIAL FABRICA LA ROJENA TEQUILA, includes the 5225126 registrant’s mark, TEQUILA.  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.

The applied-for mark is also highly similar to the 0711360, 1459451, 1718557, 2200141, 2158371, 2439162, 2507566, 2537024, 2648617, 4805818, 5557567, 3791141, 4071014, 4147136, 3169796, 3321903, 3321906, 3407395, 4572336, 4568565, 4349104, and 5073771 registrant’s marks; JOSE CUERVO, JOSE CUERVO FABRICA LA ROJENA, FABRICA LA ROJENA, JOSE CUERVO TRADICIONAL, JOSE CUERVO, JOSE CUERVO ESPECIAL, JOSE CUERVO ESPECIAL TRADICIONAL, AUTHENTIC JOSE CUERVO MARGARITAS, JOSE CUERVO PLATINO, JOSE CUERVO RESERVA, JOSE CUERVO 250 ANIVERSARIO, JOSE CUERVO TRADICIONAL 1795, JOSE CUERVO, JOSE CUERVO, JOSE CUERVO GOLDEN MARGARITA, JOSE CUERVO GOLDEN MARGARITA, JOSE CUERVO BLACK, JOSE CUERVO AUTHENTICA MARGARITA, JOSE CUERVO TRADICIONAL 1795, JOSE CUERVO TRADICIONAL and JOSE CUERVO ESPECIAL.  All of the cited registrations share significant elements with the applied-for mark.

Furthermore, the goods are closely related and overlapping.  The applicant’s goods are “Distilled blue agave liquor, alcoholic cocktail mixes, containing distilled blue agave liquor.”  The 5225126 registrant’s goods are “DISTILLED SPIRITS, NAMELY, SPIRITS DISTILLED FROM THE BLUE TEQUILANA WEBER VARIETY OF AGAVE PLANT.”  The 0711360, 1459451, 1718557, 2200141, 2158371, 2439162, 2507566, 2537024, 2648617, 4805818, 5557567, 3791141, 4071014, 4147136, 3169796, 3321903, 3321906, 3407395, 4572336, 4568565, 4349104, and 5073771 registrant’s goods are “Tequila” “Tequila” “Tequila” “Alcoholic beverages, namely, tequila” “alcoholic beverages, namely, tequila and prepared alcoholic cocktails” ““Tequila” “Alcoholic beverages, namely, tequila” “Tequila” “Prepared alcoholic cocktails containing tequila” “tequila” “Distilled blue agave liquor” “Alcoholic beverages, namely, tequila” “Tequila” “Tequila” “Prepared alcoholic cocktail mixes containing tequila” “Prepared alcoholic cocktail mixes containing tequila” “Prepared alcoholic cocktail mixes containing tequila” “Tequila” “Alcoholic cocktail mixes” “Tequila” “Alcoholic beverages, namely, tequila” and “Tequila.”  The applicant’s goods are within the scope of the registrant’s goods.

Since the marks are highly similar and the goods are closely related and overlapping, there is a substantial likelihood of confusion as to the source of the goods.

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

If the mark in the cited 0711360, 1459451, 1718557, 2200141, 2158371, 2439162, 2507566, 2537024, 2648617, 4805818, 5557567, 3791141, 4071014, 4147136, 3169796, 3321903, 3321906, 3407395, 4572336, 4568565, 4349104, and 5073771 registrations are owned by applicant, applicant may provide evidence of ownership of the mark by satisfying one of the following:

(1)       Record the assignment with the USPTO’s Assignment Recordation Branch (ownership transfer documents such as assignments can be filed online at http://etas.uspto.gov) and promptly notify the trademark examining attorney that the assignment has been duly recorded;

(2)       Submit copies of documents evidencing the chain of title; or

(3)       Submit the following statement, verified with an affidavit or signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20:  “Applicant is the owner of U.S. Registration Nos. 0711360, 1459451, 1718557, 2200141, 2158371, 2439162, 2507566, 2537024, 2648617, 4805818, 5557567, 3791141, 4071014, 4147136, 3169796, 3321903, 3321906, 3407395, 4572336, 4568565, 4349104, and 5073771.”  To provide this statement using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), use the “Response to Office Action” form; answer “yes” to wizard questions #3 and #9; then, continuing on to the next portion of the form, in the “Additional Statement(s)” section, find “Active Prior Registration(s)” and insert the U.S. registration numbers in the data fields; and follow the instructions within the form for signing.  The form must be signed twice; a signature is required both in the “Declaration Signature” section and in the “Response Signature” section.

TMEP §812.01; see 15 U.S.C. §1060; 37 C.F.R. §§2.193(e)(1), 3.25, 3.73(a)-(b); TMEP §502.02(a).

Recording a document with the Assignment Recordation Branch does not constitute a response to an Office action.  TMEP §503.01(d).

If applicant responds to the refusal(s), applicant must also respond to the requirement(s) set forth below.

Translation

To permit proper examination of the application, applicant must submit an English translation of the foreign wording in the mark.  37 C.F.R. §§2.32(a)(9), 2.61(b); see TMEP §809.  The following English translation is suggested:  The English translation of “CUERVO” “ESPECIAL” and “FABRICA LA ROJENA” in the mark is “RAVEN” “SPECIAL” and THE ROJENA FACTORY.”  TMEP §809.03.  See attached translation evidence.

Disclaimer

Applicant must disclaim the wording “ESPECIAL” because it is merely descriptive of 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); TMEP §§1213, 1213.03(a).  Applicant’s goods are “Distilled blue agave liquor, alcoholic cocktail mixes, containing distilled blue agave liquor.” 

Non-English wording that is merely descriptive, deceptively misdescriptive, geographically descriptive, generic, or informational in connection with the identified goods and/or services, is an unregistrable component of the mark that is subject to disclaimer.  TMEP §§1213.03(a), 1213.08(d); see Bausch & Lomb Optical Co. v. Overseas Fin. & Trading Co., 112 USPQ 6, 8 (Comm’r Pats. 1956).  The disclaimer must refer to the actual non-English wording that appears in the mark, not the English translation of that wording.  TMEP §1213.08(d).

The wording ESPECIAL means SPECIAL and the attached page from American Heritage dictionary shows that SPECIAL means “Surpassing what is common or usual; exceptional.” Thus, the wording merely describes applicant’s goods because it attributes excellence to the goods.

Applicant may respond to this issue by submitting a disclaimer in the following format: 

No claim is made to the exclusive right to use “ESPECIAL” apart from the mark as shown. 

For an overview of disclaimers and instructions on how to provide one using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), see the Disclaimer webpage. 

Drawing

The drawing is not acceptable because the digitized image of the mark is unclear and does not show all aspects of the mark in sufficient detail.  See TMEP §807.04(a).  A clear drawing of the mark is an application requirement.  37 C.F.R. §2.52.  Therefore, applicant must submit a new drawing showing a clear depiction of the mark.  All lines must be clean, sharp and solid, and not fine or crowded.  37 C.F.R. §§2.53(c), 2.54(e); TMEP §§807.05(c), 807.06(a).  The new drawing must have the federal registration symbol ® deleted from the drawing of the mark; this symbol is not part of the mark and is not registrable.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.72; TMEP §807.14(a).  Although applicant must delete this matter, applicant may not make any other changes or amendments that would materially alter the drawing of the mark.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.72; TMEP §§807.14 et seq.  For more information about deleting matter from the drawing, see the Drawing webpage.

The applicant should also note the following potential grounds for refusal.

Prior-Pending Applications

The filing dates of pending U.S. Application Serial Nos. 77239213, 77452651, 77563539, 77650320, 77780088, 77810226, 85030171, 85201085, 85201099, and 85377802 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.

Please call or email the assigned trademark examining attorney with questions about this Office action. 

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

/RonaldMcMorrow/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 118

ronald.mcmorrow@uspto.gov

(571) 272-9306

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 applicant does not have an attorney, the response must be signed by the individual applicant, all joint applicants, or someone with legal authority to bind a juristic applicant.  If applicant has an attorney, the response must be signed by the attorney.

• 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 28, 2020 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 90175049

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. 

/RonaldMcMorrow/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 118

ronald.mcmorrow@uspto.gov

(571) 272-9306

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 28, 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.”