| To: | Zatar Cafe & Bistro (waljahmi@gmail.com) |
| Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 90340520 - ZATAR - N/A |
| Sent: | May 10, 2021 08:43:09 AM |
| Sent As: | ecom110@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. 90340520
Mark: ZATAR
|
|
|
Correspondence Address:
|
|
|
Applicant: Zatar Cafe & Bistro
|
|
|
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: May 10, 2021
The USPTO applies the following legal authority to a trademark application:
• The Trademark Act of 1946 (15 U.S.C. §§1051 et seq.)
• The Trademark Rules of Practice (37 C.F.R. pts. 2, 3, 6, 7, 11)
• Precedential court and Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) decisions
• The Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (TMEP)
• The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Manual of Procedure (TBMP)
The term “TMEP” refers to the USPTO’s Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure, a manual written by USPTO trademark attorneys that explains the laws and procedures applicable to the trademark application, registration, and post-registration processes. The USPTO updates the TMEP periodically to reflect changes in law, policy, and procedure.
The USPTO website provides information for those unfamiliar with the process of applying for federal trademark registration, such as an e-booklet about registering trademarks, FAQs, and more. Two tools on the USPTO’s website that are particularly helpful during the examination process are the (1) informational videos and (2) application processing timelines. The videos provide information in a broadcast news format regarding a range of issues that arise during the examination of an application, such as specimens and goods and services. The application processing timelines provide information regarding the USPTO’s processing time for certain documents, as well as crucial legal deadlines.
In addition, the USPTO website provides a “Basic Facts” booklet and video series that include information about registering a trademark, including how trademarks, patents, copyrights, domain names, and business name registrations all differ, and how to select the right mark – one that is both federally registrable and legally protectable. They also explain the benefits of federal registration and suggest resources to help an applicant with filing an application.
An applicant may check the status of or view documents filed in an application or registration using the Trademark Status and Document Retrieval (TSDR) system. Enter the application serial number or registration number and click on “Status” or “Documents.”
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(s). 4973599, 4214011 and 4393217. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the enclosed registration(s).
In any likelihood of confusion determination, two key considerations are similarity of the marks and similarity or relatedness of the goods and/or services. Syndicat Des Proprietaires Viticulteurs De Chateauneuf-Du-Pape v. Pasquier DesVignes, 107 USPQ2d 1930, 1938 (TTAB 2013) (citing Federated Foods, Inc. v. Fort Howard Paper Co., 544 F.2d 1098, 1103, 192 USPQ 24, 29 (C.C.P.A. 1976)); In re Iolo Techs., LLC, 95 USPQ2d 1498, 1499 (TTAB 2010); see TMEP §1207.01. That is, the marks are compared in their entireties for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression. In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973)); TMEP §1207.01(b)-(b)(v). Additionally, the goods and/or services are compared to determine whether they are similar or 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, (a)(vi).
The proposed mark is ZATAR & DESIGN for Baked goods-muffins, cupcakes, pastries, cakes, donuts, sweet bars, shakes, desert cups, pita, tarts, pies, etc. Food and drinks- American, Mediterranean and Middle Eastern cuisine.
The registered marks are:
ZATAR (4973599) for Contract food services; Restaurant and catering services.
ZATAR (4214011) for Corn chips; Corn-based snack foods; Flour-based chips; Grain-based chips; Grain-based snack foods; Herbal food beverages; Multigrain-based snack foods; Pita chips; Snack cakes; Taco chips; Tortilla chips.
ZATAR BRAND (4393217) for Corn chips; Flour-based chips; Grain-based chips; Multigrain-based snack foods.
A. Similarity 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 Davia, 110 USPQ2d 1810, 1812 (TTAB 2014) (citing In re White Swan Ltd., 8 USPQ2d 1534, 1535 (TTAB 1988); In re 1st USA Realty Prof’ls, Inc., 84 USPQ2d 1581, 1586 (TTAB 2007)); TMEP §1207.01(b).
1. ZATAR – U.S. Registration Nos. 4973599 and 4214011
The applicant’s mark has additional design features, but these features are geometric shapes and stylization of the wording, which do not change the meaning or overall impression of the wording in the mark. Moreover, the registered marks are both presented in standard character format. A mark in typed or standard characters may be displayed in any lettering style; the rights reside in the wording or other literal element and not in any particular display or rendition. See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1363, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1909 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 1348, 94 USPQ2d 1257, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010); 37 C.F.R. §2.52(a); TMEP §1207.01(c)(iii). Thus, a mark presented in stylized characters and/or with a design element generally will not avoid likelihood of confusion with a mark in typed or standard characters because the word portion could be presented in the same manner of display. See, e.g., In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d at 1363, 101 USPQ2d at 1909; Squirtco v. Tomy Corp., 697 F.2d 1038, 1041, 216 USPQ 937, 939 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (stating that “the argument concerning a difference in type style is not viable where one party asserts rights in no particular display”).
For these reasons, the marks are confusingly similar.
2. ZATAR BRAND – U.S. Registration No. 4393217
The applicant’s mark does not include any additional wording, while the registrant’s mark includes the additional term “BRAND”. Although applicant’s mark does not contain the entirety of the registered mark, applicant’s mark is likely to appear to prospective purchasers as a shortened form of registrant’s mark. See In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 1348, 94 USPQ2d 1257, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting United States Shoe Corp., 229 USPQ 707, 709 (TTAB 1985)). Thus, merely omitting some of the wording from a registered mark may not overcome a likelihood of confusion. See In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 94 USPQ2d 1257; In re Optica Int’l, 196 USPQ 775, 778 (TTAB 1977); TMEP §1207.01(b)(ii)-(iii). In this case, applicant’s mark does not create a distinct commercial impression from the registered mark because it contains some of the wording in the registered mark and does not add any wording that would distinguish it from that mark.
Moreover, 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 Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Nat’l Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 1058, 224 USPQ 749, 751 (Fed. Cir. 1985); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii). Disclaimed matter that is descriptive of or generic for a party’s goods and/or services is typically less significant or less dominant when comparing marks. In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1305, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1050 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing In re Dixie Rests., Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 1407, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533-34 (Fed. Cir. 1997)); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii). The additional term “BRAND” in the registrant’s mark is a generic term that does not add anything to the trademark significance or meaning and commercial impression of the dominant word “ZATAR”.
Finally, as discussed above, the additional design features in the applicant’s mark do not add to the commercial impression or change the meaning of the wording, and since the registrant’s mark is a standard character mark, the design elements do not avoid likelihood of confusion with the registered mark. See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1363, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1909 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 1348, 94 USPQ2d 1257, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Squirtco v. Tomy Corp., 697 F.2d 1038, 1041, 216 USPQ 937, 939 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (stating that “the argument concerning a difference in type style is not viable where one party asserts rights in no particular display”). 37 C.F.R. §2.52(a); TMEP §1207.01(c)(iii).
For these reasons, the marks are confusingly similar.
B. Similarity of Goods/Services
The goods and/or services of the parties 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) (“[E]ven if the goods in question are different from, and thus not related to, one another in kind, the same goods can be related in the mind of the consuming public as to the origin of the goods.”); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).
The respective goods and/or services need only be “related in some manner and/or if the circumstances surrounding their marketing [be] 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).
1. ZATAR – U.S. Registration No. 4973599
The registrant’s Contract food services; Restaurant and catering services are essentially the same as the applicant’s Food and drinks- American, Mediterranean and Middle Eastern cuisine, written using different wording. As currently recited, it is not clear whether the applicant is using their mark on food goods as well as the services of providing food and drink. Many restaurants also market dessert goods under their mark. See Cheesecake Factory (http://www.thecheesecakefactoryathome.com/; http://www.thecheesecakefactory.com/). Therefore, these goods and services are confusingly similar.
2. ZATAR (U.S. Regis. No. 4214011) and ZATAR BRAND (U.S. Regis. No. 4393217)
The applicant’s and registrant’s goods include a variety of different baked goods that are often offered under the same mark. These goods would all be found in a regular grocery store and being offered under essentially the same mark would be likely to cause confusion as to source.
C. Conclusion
Thus, upon encountering applicant’s mark ZATAR on Baked goods-muffins, cupcakes, pastries, cakes, donuts, sweet bars, shakes, desert cups, pita, tarts, pies, etc. Food and drinks- American, Mediterranean and Middle Eastern cuisine and registrants’s marks ZATAR on restaurant services, ZATAR & ZATAR BRAND on various snack items, consumers are likely to be confused and mistakenly believe that the respective goods/services emanate from a common source. 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 applicant responds to the refusal(s), applicant must also respond to the requirement(s) set forth below.
IDENTIFICATION AND CLASSIFICATION OF GOODS AND SERVICES
Applicant must clarify the wording discussed below because it is indefinite and too broad. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03. This wording is indefinite because it does not make clear what the goods and/or services are. Further, this wording could identify goods and/or services in more than one international class as set forth below.
Baked goods – This wording must be further clarified to name each of the goods and classify accordingly. See acceptable wording below.
Sweet bars – The applicant must further clarify the nature of these goods and classify accordingly. See acceptable wording below.
Desert cups – First, the term “desert” is misspelled and should be changed to “dessert.” Second, the term “cups” must be further clarified to identify the nature of the goods, and if they are baked, they may remain in the list of baked goods. If not, these goods should be listed separately.
Food and drinks- American, Mediterranean and Middle Eastern cuisine - The applicant must amend this wording to more clearly identify the nature of the services.
Applicant may substitute the following wording, if accurate:
Class 5
Meal replacement shakes adapted for medical use
Protein supplement shakes
Meal replacement bars for weight loss purposes
Fruit-based meal replacement bars for medical purposes
Class 29
Shakes
Fruit- and nut-based snack bars featuring a chocolate coating
Fruit-based meal replacement bars
Class 30
Baked goods, namely, muffins, cupcakes, pastries, cakes, donuts, pita, tarts, pies
Cereal-based snack bars
Candy bars
Desert pudding served in a cup
Class 43
Providing of food and drinks, namely, American, Mediterranean and Middle Eastern cuisine
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.
MULTIPLE CLASSES – ADDITIONAL FEES REQUIRED
The application identifies goods and/or services that are classified in at least FOUR classes; however, applicant submitted a fee(s) sufficient for only ONE class(es). In a multiple-class application, a fee for each class is required. 37 C.F.R. §2.86(a)(2), (b)(2); TMEP §§810.01, 1403.01. For more information about adding classes to an application, see the Multiple-class Application webpage.
Therefore, applicant must either (1) restrict the application to the number of classes covered by the fees already paid, or (2) submit the fees for each additional class.
The fee for adding classes to a TEAS Standard application is $350 per class. See 37 C.F.R. §2.6(a)(1)(iii). For more information about adding classes to an application, see the Multiple-class Application webpage.
(1) List the goods and/or services by their international class number in consecutive numerical order, starting with the lowest numbered class (for example, International Class 3: perfume; International Class 18: cosmetic bags sold empty).
(2) Submit a filing fee for each international class not covered by the fee(s) already paid (view the USPTO’s current fee schedule). Specifically, the application identifies goods and/or services based on use in commerce that are classified in at least FOUR classes; however, applicant submitted a fee(s) sufficient for only ONE class(es). Applicant must either (a) submit the filing fees for the classes not covered by the submitted fees or (b) restrict the application to the number of classes covered by the fees already paid.
(3) Submit verified dates of first use of the mark anywhere and in commerce for each international class. See more information about verified dates of use.
(4) Submit a specimen for each international class. The current specimen is acceptable for class(es) 43; and applicant needs a specimen for class(es) 5, 29 and 30. See more information about specimens.
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).
Specimens for services must show a direct association between the mark and the services and include: (1) copies of advertising and marketing material, (2) a photograph of business signage or billboards, or (3) materials showing the mark in the sale, rendering, or advertising of the services. See 37 C.F.R. §2.56(b)(2), (c); TMEP §1301.04(a), (h)(iv)(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), 1301.04(a).
(5) Submit a verified statement that “The specimen was in use in commerce on or in connection with the goods and/or services listed in the application at least as early as the filing date of the application.” See more information about verification.
See 37 C.F.R. §2.86(a); TMEP §§1403.01, 1403.02(c).
For an overview of the requirements for a Section 1(a) multiple-class application and how to satisfy the requirements online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form, see the Multiple-class Application webpage.
MARK DESCRIPTION – ACCURATE BUT INCOMPLETE
The following description is suggested, if accurate:
The mark consists of "ZATAR"- a cursive letter "Z" with 6 diamond dots forming the shape of a triangle above the “Z” and the base line part of the "Z" is stretched under "A", "T", "A"; the letter "A" is similar to a Clarendon font with a pointed dome on top and a stretched back; the letter "T" has a long cross stretched above the "A" and "R". The "A" is similar to a Clarendon font with a pointed dome on top with a diamond dot above it and a stretched back; and "R".
INFORMATION AND INQUIRIES REGARDING THIS ACTION
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.
The USPTO does not accept emails as responses to Office actions; however, emails can be used for informal communications and are included in the application record. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(c), 2.191; TMEP §§304.01-.02, 709.04-.05.
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.
How to respond. Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action.
/Jennifer H. Dixon/
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 110
571-272-9359
jennifer.dixon@uspto.gov (informal inquiries only)
RESPONSE GUIDANCE
