| Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number.
PTO Form 1957 (Rev 10/2011) |
| OMB No. 0651-0050 (Exp 09/20/2020) |
|
|
|
|---|---|
| SERIAL NUMBER | 88312398 |
| LAW OFFICE ASSIGNED | LAW OFFICE 117 |
| MARK SECTION | |
| MARK | https://tmng-al.uspto.gov/resting2/api/img/88312398/large |
| LITERAL ELEMENT | BUDDHA BLISS |
| STANDARD CHARACTERS | YES |
| USPTO-GENERATED IMAGE | YES |
| MARK STATEMENT | The mark consists of standard characters, without claim to any particular font style, size or color. |
| LEGAL ENTITY SECTION (current) | |
| TYPE | limited liability company |
| STATE/COUNTRY WHERE LEGALLY ORGANIZED | Illinois |
| LEGAL ENTITY SECTION (proposed) | |
| TYPE | limited liability company |
| STATE/COUNTRY WHERE LEGALLY ORGANIZED | Delaware |
| ARGUMENT(S) | |
|
IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICANT: GiGaFoods LLC MARK: BUDDHA BLISS SERIAL NO.: 88312398 CLASS: 030 Attn: Andrea D. Saunders Trademark Examining Attorney Law Office 117 RESPONSE TO OFFICE ACTION I. INTRODUCTION The Examining Attorney has issued an Office Action making an initial refusal to register Applicant’s mark BUDDHA BLISS for “Cookies; Crackers; Macaroons” under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act citing Registration No. 2045651 for the mark BUDDHA (the “Cited Mark”). The Cited Mark covers the following goods in Class 30: “cakes such as custard, flour and rice, tapioca and food starch, sauces, namely, chili, fish, soy and vinegar, flours such as mooncake and rice, spices, frozen confections, and frozen entrées.” The Examining Attorney contends that confusion with the Cited Mark is likely based on the similarity of the marks and the parties’ goods. Applicant respectfully disagrees that confusion is likely and requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the refusal. As discussed below, when properly viewed in their entireties, the marks are sufficiently different to make confusion unlikely and the Cited Mark co-exists with numerous third party registrations and uses of BUDDHA formative marks for snacks and desserts, such that consumers have been educated 2 to distinguish between different marks based on minute distinctions. Thus, confusion is not likely between Applicant’s mark and the Cited Mark. For the reasons more fully discussed below, Applicant therefore respectfully requests that the Examining Attorney withdraw the refusal to register because there is no likelihood of confusion between concurrent use of Applicant’s BUDDHA BLISS mark and the Cited Mark. II. THERE IS NO LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION BETWEEN APPLICANT’S MARK AND THE CITED MARK The assessment of whether a likelihood of confusion exists between two marks is to be made on a case-by-case basis applying the factors set forth in In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 177 U.S.P.Q. 563, 567 (CCPA 1973). The Examining Attorney bears the burden of showing that a mark falls within the statutory bar of Section 2(d). 3 J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition § 19:75 at 19-228, 19-229 (4th Ed.); In re Mavety Media Group Ltd., 33 F.3d 1367, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (“The PTO has the burden of proving that a trademark falls within a prohibition of § 1052.”). The Examining Attorney need not consider all factors, but may consider those factors that are most relevant to the case at hand. In re Dixie Restaurants, Inc., 41 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1531, 1533 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The factors most relevant here – which weigh strongly against a likelihood of confusion – are: (1) whether the marks in their entireties are similar; and (2) the number and nature of similar marks registered and in use on similar goods. It is axiomatic that marks must be examined in their entirety. 4 McCarthy § 23:41 at 23- 171 (“It is the impression that the mark as a whole creates on the average reasonably prudent buyer and not the parts thereof that is important.”); Estate of P.D. Beckwith, Inc. v. Commissioner of Patents, 252 U.S. 538, 545-46 (1920) (“The commercial impression of a 3 trademark is derived from it as a whole, not from its elements separated and considered in detail. For this reason it should be considered in its entirety.”). Accordingly, trademarks must be examined in their entirety with respect to appearance, pronunciation, connotation, and commercial impression. du Pont, 177 U.S.P.Q. at 567. An Examining Attorney therefore must not dissect the marks, focusing on any similarity that may exist, while downplaying or ignoring differences that make the marks distinguishable. Franklin Mint Corp. v. Master Mfg. Co., 667 F.2d 1005, 1007 (CCPA 1981). As the Federal Circuit has made clear, “it is improper to dissect a mark when engaging in this analysis.” In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Mere similarity or even identity between two marks can never alone be decisive of likelihood of confusion. As the court stated in Jacobs v. Int'l Multifoods Corp., 212 U.S.P.Q. 641, 642 (CCPA 1982) (emphasis added), “[t]o establish likelihood of confusion a party must show something more than that similar or even identical marks are used.” Moreover, it is wellsettled that even where two marks share a common term, the shared term by itself does not render the marks confusingly similar. “The use of identical, even dominant, words in common does not automatically mean that two marks are similar. … [A] court must look to the overall impression created by the marks and not merely compare individual features.” Gen. Mills, Inc. v. Kellogg Co., 824 F.2d 622, 627 (8th Cir. 1987); Steve’s Ice Cream, Inc. v. Steve’s Famous Hot Dogs, 3 U.S.P.Q.2d 1477, 1478 (TTAB 1987) (STEVE’S for ice cream and STEVE’S and design for restaurant services held not confusingly similar). The Board and the courts have repeatedly found that the mere fact that marks contain the same term or element for the same or similar goods and services does not render them 4 confusingly similar. Gruner + Jahr USA Publishing v. Meredith Corp., 26 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1583 (2d Cir. 1993) (holding “PARENTS” and “PARENTS DIGEST” for the same type of magazines not confusingly similar); In re Ferrero, 178 U.S.P.Q. 167 (CCPA 1973) (holding “TIC TAC” for candy not confusingly similar to “TIC TAC DOE” for ice cream); In re Hearst Corp., 25 U.S.P.Q.2d 1238 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (holding “VARGAS” and “VARGA GIRL”, both for calendars, sufficiently different so that there was no likelihood of confusion); In re Electrolyte Labs., Inc., 929 F.2d 645, 647 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (holding K+ and design and K+EFF (stylized), both for potassium supplements, not confusingly similar); Howard Johnson Company v. The Ground Pat’i Inc., 214 U.S.P.Q. 214 (TTAB 1982) (holding “THE GROUND PAT'I” and design not confusingly similar to “THE GROUND ROUND” and design, both for restaurant services). Thus, even where two marks contain one or more identical terms, slight differences in the appearance, sound, connotation, or commercial impression conveyed by the marks can be sufficient to dispel confusion. Gen. Mills,, 824 F.2d at 627 (“OATMEAL RAISIN CRISP” not confusingly similar to “APPLE RAISIN CRISP” both for breakfast cereal); Consol. Cigar Co. v. RJR Tobacco Co., 491 F.2d 1265, 1267 (CCPA 1974) (“DUTCH APPLE” for pipe tobacco not confusingly similar to “DUTCH MASTERS” for cigars); In re August Storck KG, 218 U.S.P.Q. 823, 825-26 (TTAB 1983) (“JUICY 2” stylized not confusingly similar to “JUICY BLEND II” stylized); Standard Brands Inc. v. Peters, 191 U.S.P.Q. 168, 172 (TTAB 1975) (“CORNROYAL” for butter and margarine held not confusingly similar to “ROYAL” for liquid shortening and other food products). Here, the Office Action focused on the common term BUDDHA and did not compare Applicant’s mark in its entirety to the Cited Mark. Based on established precedent, the mere fact 5 that Applicant’s mark and the Cited Mark share the word BUDDHA does not in itself render the marks confusingly similar. By focusing solely on the term BUDDHA, while disregarding the remainder of Applicant’s mark, the Office Action improperly dissected Applicant’s mark and reached a conclusion that is incorrect at a fundamental level. The Office Action erroneously focused on the term BUDDHA and failed to compare Applicant’s mark in its entirety with the Cited Mark. Applicant’s mark is BUDDHA BLISS and not merely BUDDHA. When the marks are properly viewed in their entirety, Applicant’s mark differs sufficiently from the Cited Mark in appearance, sound, meaning and commercial impression such that confusion would not be likely. The applied-for mark is visually and aurally a distinct and memorable alliteration: BUDDHA BLISS. Consumers will thus perceive and pronounce it as a two-word alliteration in its entirety. Consequently, when the marks are properly in their entirety, Applicant’s mark and the Cited Mark sufficiently differ in both appearance and sound. Colgate Palmolive Co. v. Carter-Wallace, Inc., 167 U.S.P.Q. 529, 530 (CCPA 1970) (holding PEAK PERIOD not confusingly similar to PEAK, observing: “The difference in appearance and sound of the marks in issue is too obvious to render detailed discussion necessary. In their entireties neither look nor sound alike.”). Moreover, the addition of word BLISS to Applicant’s mark, and the difference in sight, sound and meaning created by the distinct alliteration of BUDDHA BLISS, are such that Applicant’s mark conveys a separate and unique commercial impression from that of the Cited Mark and makes confusion unlikely. As discussed below, the conclusion that consumer confusion is unlikely is further reinforced given the weak and diluted nature of the Cited Mark. 6 The conclusion that there is no likely confusion is further bolstered by the extensive use and registration of BUDDHA formative trademarks by third parties for snacks and desserts. Applicant submits below an illustrative chart of marks that are registered and/or used in the marketplace that contain the term BUDDHA for snacks and desserts. MARK REG. NO./URL GOODS BUDDHA CHOCOLATE 4,698,000 Chocolate; Chocolate bars; Chocolate almond butter cups. Class 30. BUDDHA BELLY KITCHEN 4,777,244 Granola snacks. Class 30. HUNGRY BUDDHA 5,101,148 Healthy snack foods, namely, coconut chips. Class 30. POPCORN BUDDHA 5,690,563 Popcorn. Class 30. 4,755,053 Popcorn. Class 30. 7 THE CAJUN BUDDHA 5,023,210 Cocoa; Pastry. Class 30. BUDDHA BOWL FOODS 4,741,710 Himalayan mineral salt snack foods, namely, popcorn, grain-based chips, and nutritional popcorn. Class 30. BUDDHABERRY 4,759,148 Frozen yogurt; frozen yogurt based desserts combined with fruit, nuts, cereal and candy; frozen dairy desserts, namely, frozen yogurts and reduced fat gelatos; frozen confectionery; frozen confectionery, namely, nonfat, dairy free sorbets, Italian ices, and non-fat, dairy free sorbets combined with fruit, nuts, cereal and candy; frozen dairy desserts, namely, frozen yogurts and reduced fat gelatos combined with fruit, nuts, cereal and candy. Class 30. BUDDHA DOG 4,565,852 Pumpkin pie. Class 30. 8 BUDDHA BELLY BROWNIE http://buddhabellybro wnie.com/ourbellies. html Chocolate brownies. ALMOND BUDDHA https://wildandaliveorg anics.com/shop/almon d-buddha/ Chocolate bar with salted almond butter filling. BUDDHA CUPS https://www.ilovevega n.com/review-buddhacups- from-brooklynnyc/ Almond butter cups. BUDDHA BITES http://www.buddhabit esenergy.com/ Organic gluten-free cookie bites and snacks. BUDDHA’S DELIGHT https://www.amazon. com/VIVAPURABuddhas- Delight-8- OZ/dp/B076MM8GR 4/ref=sr_1_96?keywo rds=buddha&qid=155 6736010&s=grocery &sr=1-96 Trail mix consisting of coconut chips, goji berries, cashews, and sultana raisins BUDDHABERRY https://www.buddhab erry.com/ Frozen yogurt, crepes, waffles and candy. 9 CHOCOLATE BUDDHA https://www.buddhac hocolate.com/collecti ons/2019-frontpage/ products/classic -dark-4-bars Chocolate bars. POPCORN BUDDHA https://www.popcorn buddhausa.com/shop/ fudge/gourmet-fudge/ Fudge. SWEET BUDDHA https://www.thesweet buddha.com/customcakes- cookies Cakes and cookies. CARMEL ECO BOX - BUDDHA https://goodkarmal.co m/products/ecocaramel- gift-box Carmels. Attached as Exhibit A are copies of the corresponding registration records from the USPTO’s TESS database and the relevant web pages. All of the above registrations were issued over the Cited Mark. This co-existence on the trademark register evidences that the USPTO believes that consumers can and do distinguish between marks containing the BUDDHA formative for snacks and desserts in Class 30 based upon even small differences in the marks. Importantly, if the Cited Mark is able to peacefully coexist on the register with the marks listed above, it should also be able to coexist with Applicant’s mark. Just as no confusion was considered likely between these other registered 10 marks and the Cited Mark, Applicant respectfully submits that no confusion is likely here. Given the different appearance, pronunciation, meaning and commercial impression of Applicant’s mark and the Cited Mark, and given the extensive use and registration of marks by third parties incorporating BUDDHA for snacks and desserts, consumers can distinguish between them and confusion is unlikely. III. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, Applicant respectfully requests that the Examining Attorney withdraw the refusal under Section 2(d) and approve the subject Application for publication. Dated: June 27, 2019 By: Applicant GiGaFoods LLC /Glenn Rice/ Counsel for Applicant Glenn A. Rice, Esq. FUNKHOUSER VEGOSEN LIEBMAN & DUNN LTD. 55 West Monroe Street Suite 2300 Chicago, Illinois 60603 (312) 701-6895 grice@fvldlaw.com Counsel for Applicant |
|
| EVIDENCE SECTION | |
| EVIDENCE FILE NAME(S) | |
| ORIGINAL PDF FILE | evi_9821350217-20190627234149830059_._Response_To_Office_Action.pdf |
| CONVERTED PDF FILE(S)
(10 pages) | \\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\883\123\88312398\xml5\ROA0002.JPG |
| \\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\883\123\88312398\xml5\ROA0003.JPG | |
| \\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\883\123\88312398\xml5\ROA0004.JPG | |
| \\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\883\123\88312398\xml5\ROA0005.JPG | |
| \\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\883\123\88312398\xml5\ROA0006.JPG | |
| \\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\883\123\88312398\xml5\ROA0007.JPG | |
| \\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\883\123\88312398\xml5\ROA0008.JPG | |
| \\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\883\123\88312398\xml5\ROA0009.JPG | |
| \\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\883\123\88312398\xml5\ROA0010.JPG | |
| \\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\883\123\88312398\xml5\ROA0011.JPG | |
| ORIGINAL PDF FILE | evi_9821350217-20190627234149830059_._Exhibit_A.pdf |
| CONVERTED PDF FILE(S)
(40 pages) | \\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\883\123\88312398\xml5\ROA0012.JPG |
| \\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\883\123\88312398\xml5\ROA0013.JPG | |
| \\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\883\123\88312398\xml5\ROA0014.JPG | |
| \\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\883\123\88312398\xml5\ROA0015.JPG | |
| \\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\883\123\88312398\xml5\ROA0016.JPG | |
| \\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\883\123\88312398\xml5\ROA0017.JPG | |
| \\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\883\123\88312398\xml5\ROA0018.JPG | |
| \\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\883\123\88312398\xml5\ROA0019.JPG | |
| \\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\883\123\88312398\xml5\ROA0020.JPG | |
| \\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\883\123\88312398\xml5\ROA0021.JPG | |
| \\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\883\123\88312398\xml5\ROA0022.JPG | |
| \\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\883\123\88312398\xml5\ROA0023.JPG | |
| \\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\883\123\88312398\xml5\ROA0024.JPG | |
| \\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\883\123\88312398\xml5\ROA0025.JPG | |
| \\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\883\123\88312398\xml5\ROA0026.JPG | |
| \\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\883\123\88312398\xml5\ROA0027.JPG | |
| \\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\883\123\88312398\xml5\ROA0028.JPG | |
| \\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\883\123\88312398\xml5\ROA0029.JPG | |
| \\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\883\123\88312398\xml5\ROA0030.JPG | |
| \\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\883\123\88312398\xml5\ROA0031.JPG | |
| \\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\883\123\88312398\xml5\ROA0032.JPG | |
| \\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\883\123\88312398\xml5\ROA0033.JPG | |
| \\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\883\123\88312398\xml5\ROA0034.JPG | |
| \\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\883\123\88312398\xml5\ROA0035.JPG | |
| \\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\883\123\88312398\xml5\ROA0036.JPG | |
| \\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\883\123\88312398\xml5\ROA0037.JPG | |
| \\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\883\123\88312398\xml5\ROA0038.JPG | |
| \\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\883\123\88312398\xml5\ROA0039.JPG | |
| \\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\883\123\88312398\xml5\ROA0040.JPG | |
| \\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\883\123\88312398\xml5\ROA0041.JPG | |
| \\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\883\123\88312398\xml5\ROA0042.JPG | |
| \\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\883\123\88312398\xml5\ROA0043.JPG | |
| \\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\883\123\88312398\xml5\ROA0044.JPG | |
| \\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\883\123\88312398\xml5\ROA0045.JPG | |
| \\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\883\123\88312398\xml5\ROA0046.JPG | |
| \\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\883\123\88312398\xml5\ROA0047.JPG | |
| \\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\883\123\88312398\xml5\ROA0048.JPG | |
| \\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\883\123\88312398\xml5\ROA0049.JPG | |
| \\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\883\123\88312398\xml5\ROA0050.JPG | |
| \\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\883\123\88312398\xml5\ROA0051.JPG | |
| DESCRIPTION OF EVIDENCE FILE | Response To Office Action and Exhibit A |
| SIGNATURE SECTION | |
| RESPONSE SIGNATURE | /Glenn Rice/ |
| SIGNATORY'S NAME | Glenn A. Rice |
| SIGNATORY'S POSITION | Attorney of record, Illinois bar member |
| SIGNATORY'S PHONE NUMBER | 312 701-6895 |
| DATE SIGNED | 06/27/2019 |
| AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY | YES |
| FILING INFORMATION SECTION | |
| SUBMIT DATE | Thu Jun 27 23:59:29 EDT 2019 |
| TEAS STAMP | USPTO/ROA-XX.XXX.XX.XXX-2 0190627235929736015-88312 398-620c88c8f3949b0dc89e2 2fdfdaa8359ce068eddbc63c8 19fdee0ea232f09f9c-N/A-N/ A-20190627234149830059 |
| Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number.
PTO Form 1957 (Rev 10/2011) |
| OMB No. 0651-0050 (Exp 09/20/2020) |
IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICANT: GiGaFoods LLC
MARK: BUDDHA BLISS
SERIAL NO.: 88312398
CLASS: 030
Attn: Andrea D. Saunders
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 117
RESPONSE TO OFFICE ACTION
I. INTRODUCTION
The Examining Attorney has issued an Office Action making an initial refusal to register
Applicant’s mark BUDDHA BLISS for “Cookies; Crackers; Macaroons” under Section 2(d) of
the Trademark Act citing Registration No. 2045651 for the mark BUDDHA (the “Cited Mark”).
The Cited Mark covers the following goods in Class 30: “cakes such as custard, flour and rice,
tapioca and food starch, sauces, namely, chili, fish, soy and vinegar, flours such as mooncake
and rice, spices, frozen confections, and frozen entrées.”
The Examining Attorney contends that confusion with the Cited Mark is likely based on
the similarity of the marks and the parties’ goods. Applicant respectfully disagrees that
confusion is likely and requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the refusal. As discussed
below, when properly viewed in their entireties, the marks are sufficiently different to make
confusion unlikely and the Cited Mark co-exists with numerous third party registrations and uses
of BUDDHA formative marks for snacks and desserts, such that consumers have been educated
2
to distinguish between different marks based on minute distinctions. Thus, confusion is not
likely between Applicant’s mark and the Cited Mark.
For the reasons more fully discussed below, Applicant therefore respectfully requests that
the Examining Attorney withdraw the refusal to register because there is no likelihood of
confusion between concurrent use of Applicant’s BUDDHA BLISS mark and the Cited Mark.
II. THERE IS NO LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION BETWEEN
APPLICANT’S MARK AND THE CITED MARK
The assessment of whether a likelihood of confusion exists between two marks is to be made
on a case-by-case basis applying the factors set forth in In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.,
177 U.S.P.Q. 563, 567 (CCPA 1973). The Examining Attorney bears the burden of showing that
a mark falls within the statutory bar of Section 2(d). 3 J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on
Trademarks and Unfair Competition § 19:75 at 19-228, 19-229 (4th Ed.); In re Mavety Media
Group Ltd., 33 F.3d 1367, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (“The PTO has the burden of proving that a
trademark falls within a prohibition of § 1052.”). The Examining Attorney need not consider all
factors, but may consider those factors that are most relevant to the case at hand. In re Dixie
Restaurants, Inc., 41 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1531, 1533 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The factors most relevant here –
which weigh strongly against a likelihood of confusion – are: (1) whether the marks in their
entireties are similar; and (2) the number and nature of similar marks registered and in use on
similar goods.
It is axiomatic that marks must be examined in their entirety. 4 McCarthy § 23:41 at 23-
171 (“It is the impression that the mark as a whole creates on the average reasonably prudent
buyer and not the parts thereof that is important.”); Estate of P.D. Beckwith, Inc. v.
Commissioner of Patents, 252 U.S. 538, 545-46 (1920) (“The commercial impression of a
3
trademark is derived from it as a whole, not from its elements separated and considered in detail.
For this reason it should be considered in its entirety.”). Accordingly, trademarks must be
examined in their entirety with respect to appearance, pronunciation, connotation, and
commercial impression. du Pont, 177 U.S.P.Q. at 567.
An Examining Attorney therefore must not dissect the marks, focusing on any similarity
that may exist, while downplaying or ignoring differences that make the marks distinguishable.
Franklin Mint Corp. v. Master Mfg. Co., 667 F.2d 1005, 1007 (CCPA 1981). As the Federal
Circuit has made clear, “it is improper to dissect a mark when engaging in this analysis.” In re
Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
Mere similarity or even identity between two marks can never alone be decisive of
likelihood of confusion. As the court stated in Jacobs v. Int'l Multifoods Corp., 212 U.S.P.Q.
641, 642 (CCPA 1982) (emphasis added), “[t]o establish likelihood of confusion a party must
show something more than that similar or even identical marks are used.” Moreover, it is wellsettled
that even where two marks share a common term, the shared term by itself does not
render the marks confusingly similar. “The use of identical, even dominant, words in common
does not automatically mean that two marks are similar. … [A] court must look to the overall
impression created by the marks and not merely compare individual features.” Gen. Mills, Inc. v.
Kellogg Co., 824 F.2d 622, 627 (8th Cir. 1987); Steve’s Ice Cream, Inc. v. Steve’s Famous Hot
Dogs, 3 U.S.P.Q.2d 1477, 1478 (TTAB 1987) (STEVE’S for ice cream and STEVE’S and
design for restaurant services held not confusingly similar).
The Board and the courts have repeatedly found that the mere fact that marks contain the
same term or element for the same or similar goods and services does not render them
4
confusingly similar. Gruner + Jahr USA Publishing v. Meredith Corp., 26 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1583 (2d
Cir. 1993) (holding “PARENTS” and “PARENTS DIGEST” for the same type of magazines not
confusingly similar); In re Ferrero, 178 U.S.P.Q. 167 (CCPA 1973) (holding “TIC TAC” for
candy not confusingly similar to “TIC TAC DOE” for ice cream); In re Hearst Corp., 25
U.S.P.Q.2d 1238 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (holding “VARGAS” and “VARGA GIRL”, both for
calendars, sufficiently different so that there was no likelihood of confusion); In re Electrolyte
Labs., Inc., 929 F.2d 645, 647 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (holding K+ and design and K+EFF (stylized),
both for potassium supplements, not confusingly similar); Howard Johnson Company v. The
Ground Pat’i Inc., 214 U.S.P.Q. 214 (TTAB 1982) (holding “THE GROUND PAT'I” and design
not confusingly similar to “THE GROUND ROUND” and design, both for restaurant services).
Thus, even where two marks contain one or more identical terms, slight differences in the
appearance, sound, connotation, or commercial impression conveyed by the marks can be
sufficient to dispel confusion. Gen. Mills,, 824 F.2d at 627 (“OATMEAL RAISIN CRISP” not
confusingly similar to “APPLE RAISIN CRISP” both for breakfast cereal); Consol. Cigar Co. v.
RJR Tobacco Co., 491 F.2d 1265, 1267 (CCPA 1974) (“DUTCH APPLE” for pipe tobacco not
confusingly similar to “DUTCH MASTERS” for cigars); In re August Storck KG, 218 U.S.P.Q.
823, 825-26 (TTAB 1983) (“JUICY 2” stylized not confusingly similar to “JUICY BLEND II”
stylized); Standard Brands Inc. v. Peters, 191 U.S.P.Q. 168, 172 (TTAB 1975) (“CORNROYAL”
for butter and margarine held not confusingly similar to “ROYAL” for liquid
shortening and other food products).
Here, the Office Action focused on the common term BUDDHA and did not compare
Applicant’s mark in its entirety to the Cited Mark. Based on established precedent, the mere fact
5
that Applicant’s mark and the Cited Mark share the word BUDDHA does not in itself render the
marks confusingly similar. By focusing solely on the term BUDDHA, while disregarding the
remainder of Applicant’s mark, the Office Action improperly dissected Applicant’s mark and
reached a conclusion that is incorrect at a fundamental level.
The Office Action erroneously focused on the term BUDDHA and failed to compare
Applicant’s mark in its entirety with the Cited Mark. Applicant’s mark is BUDDHA BLISS and
not merely BUDDHA. When the marks are properly viewed in their entirety, Applicant’s mark
differs sufficiently from the Cited Mark in appearance, sound, meaning and commercial
impression such that confusion would not be likely.
The applied-for mark is visually and aurally a distinct and memorable alliteration:
BUDDHA BLISS. Consumers will thus perceive and pronounce it as a two-word alliteration in
its entirety. Consequently, when the marks are properly in their entirety, Applicant’s mark and
the Cited Mark sufficiently differ in both appearance and sound. Colgate Palmolive Co. v.
Carter-Wallace, Inc., 167 U.S.P.Q. 529, 530 (CCPA 1970) (holding PEAK PERIOD not
confusingly similar to PEAK, observing: “The difference in appearance and sound of the marks
in issue is too obvious to render detailed discussion necessary. In their entireties neither look nor
sound alike.”).
Moreover, the addition of word BLISS to Applicant’s mark, and the difference in sight,
sound and meaning created by the distinct alliteration of BUDDHA BLISS, are such that
Applicant’s mark conveys a separate and unique commercial impression from that of the Cited
Mark and makes confusion unlikely. As discussed below, the conclusion that consumer
confusion is unlikely is further reinforced given the weak and diluted nature of the Cited Mark.
6
The conclusion that there is no likely confusion is further bolstered by the extensive use
and registration of BUDDHA formative trademarks by third parties for snacks and desserts.
Applicant submits below an illustrative chart of marks that are registered and/or used in the
marketplace that contain the term BUDDHA for snacks and desserts.
MARK REG. NO./URL GOODS
BUDDHA CHOCOLATE
4,698,000
Chocolate; Chocolate bars;
Chocolate almond butter
cups. Class 30.
BUDDHA BELLY KITCHEN
4,777,244
Granola snacks. Class 30.
HUNGRY BUDDHA
5,101,148
Healthy snack foods, namely,
coconut chips. Class 30.
POPCORN BUDDHA
5,690,563
Popcorn. Class 30.
4,755,053
Popcorn. Class 30.
7
THE CAJUN BUDDHA
5,023,210
Cocoa; Pastry. Class 30.
BUDDHA BOWL FOODS
4,741,710
Himalayan mineral salt snack
foods, namely, popcorn,
grain-based chips, and
nutritional popcorn. Class 30.
BUDDHABERRY
4,759,148
Frozen yogurt; frozen yogurt
based desserts combined with
fruit, nuts, cereal and candy;
frozen dairy desserts, namely,
frozen yogurts and reduced
fat gelatos; frozen
confectionery; frozen
confectionery, namely, nonfat,
dairy free sorbets, Italian
ices, and non-fat, dairy free
sorbets combined with fruit,
nuts, cereal and candy; frozen
dairy desserts, namely, frozen
yogurts and reduced fat
gelatos combined with fruit,
nuts, cereal and candy. Class
30.
BUDDHA DOG
4,565,852
Pumpkin pie. Class 30.
8
BUDDHA BELLY BROWNIE
http://buddhabellybro
wnie.com/ourbellies.
html
Chocolate brownies.
ALMOND BUDDHA
https://wildandaliveorg
anics.com/shop/almon
d-buddha/
Chocolate bar with salted
almond butter filling.
BUDDHA CUPS
https://www.ilovevega
n.com/review-buddhacups-
from-brooklynnyc/
Almond butter cups.
BUDDHA BITES
http://www.buddhabit
esenergy.com/
Organic gluten-free cookie
bites and snacks.
BUDDHA’S DELIGHT
https://www.amazon.
com/VIVAPURABuddhas-
Delight-8-
OZ/dp/B076MM8GR
4/ref=sr_1_96?keywo
rds=buddha&qid=155
6736010&s=grocery
&sr=1-96
Trail mix consisting of
coconut chips, goji berries,
cashews, and sultana raisins
BUDDHABERRY
https://www.buddhab
erry.com/
Frozen yogurt, crepes, waffles
and candy.
9
CHOCOLATE BUDDHA
https://www.buddhac
hocolate.com/collecti
ons/2019-frontpage/
products/classic
-dark-4-bars
Chocolate bars.
POPCORN BUDDHA
https://www.popcorn
buddhausa.com/shop/
fudge/gourmet-fudge/
Fudge.
SWEET BUDDHA
https://www.thesweet
buddha.com/customcakes-
cookies
Cakes and cookies.
CARMEL ECO BOX -
BUDDHA
https://goodkarmal.co
m/products/ecocaramel-
gift-box
Carmels.
Attached as Exhibit A are copies of the corresponding registration records from the
USPTO’s TESS database and the relevant web pages.
All of the above registrations were issued over the Cited Mark. This co-existence on the
trademark register evidences that the USPTO believes that consumers can and do distinguish
between marks containing the BUDDHA formative for snacks and desserts in Class 30 based
upon even small differences in the marks. Importantly, if the Cited Mark is able to peacefully
coexist on the register with the marks listed above, it should also be able to coexist with
Applicant’s mark. Just as no confusion was considered likely between these other registered
10
marks and the Cited Mark, Applicant respectfully submits that no confusion is likely here.
Given the different appearance, pronunciation, meaning and commercial impression of
Applicant’s mark and the Cited Mark, and given the extensive use and registration of marks by
third parties incorporating BUDDHA for snacks and desserts, consumers can distinguish
between them and confusion is unlikely.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Applicant respectfully requests that the Examining Attorney
withdraw the refusal under Section 2(d) and approve the subject Application for publication.
Dated: June 27, 2019
By:
Applicant GiGaFoods LLC
/Glenn Rice/
Counsel for Applicant
Glenn A. Rice, Esq.
FUNKHOUSER VEGOSEN LIEBMAN
& DUNN LTD.
55 West Monroe Street Suite 2300
Chicago, Illinois 60603
(312) 701-6895
grice@fvldlaw.com
Counsel for Applicant