United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

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

 

 

 

FINAL 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) and/or Electronic System for Trademark Trials and Appeals (ESTTA).  A link to the appropriate TEAS response form and/or to ESTTA for an appeal appears at the end of this Office action. 

 

 

Issue date:  October 08, 2021

 

 

INTRODUCTION

 

This Office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on September 7, 2021.

 

In a previous Office action(s) dated May 7, 2021, the trademark examining attorney refused registration of the applied-for mark based on the following:  Trademark Act Section 2(d) for a likelihood of confusion with a registered mark.  In addition, applicant was required to satisfy the following requirement(s):  disclaim descriptive wording in the mark and clarify the entity type.

 

Based on applicant’s response, the trademark examining attorney notes that the following requirement(s) have been satisfied: disclaim descriptive wording in the mark and clarify the entity type.  See TMEP §§713.02, 714.04. 

 

The trademark examining attorney maintains and now makes FINAL the refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) in the summary of issues below.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b); TMEP §714.04. All previous arguments and evidence, where applicable, are incorporated to this Office action by reference herein.

 

SUMMARY OF ISSUES MADE FINAL that applicant must address:

• Section 2(d) Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion

 

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. 3283604.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the previously 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).  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 applicant’s mark is PEPPERMINT ICE presented in standard character form for use in association with: “Candy; Candy mints; Mints for breath freshening; Chewing gum; Chewing gum for breath freshening” in International Class 30.

 

The mark in Registration No. 3283604 is LICORICE ICE presented in standard character form for use in association with: “candy” in International Class 30.

 

Similarity 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).

 

 

 

Here, PEPPERMINT ICE and LICORICE ICE are highly similar in that each mark contains the identical term ICE. The additional wording in each mark, PEPPERMINT and LICORICE, has been disclaimed and does not significantly change the overall commercial impression of the marks. 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).

 

Where the goods of an applicant and registrant are identical or virtually identical, as they are here, the degree of similarity between the marks required to support a finding that confusion is likely declines.  See Cai v. Diamond Hong, Inc., 901 F.3d 1367, 1373, 127 USPQ2d 1797, 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1363, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); TMEP §1207.01(b).

 

The applicant argues that the terms PEPPERMINT and LICORICE are the dominant portions of each mark because they are the first term of each mark. This argument is not persuasive. Matter that is descriptive of or generic for a party’s goods is typically less significant or less dominant in relation to other wording in a mark.  See Anheuser-Busch, LLC v. Innvopak Sys. Pty Ltd., 115 USPQ2d 1816, 1824-25 (TTAB 2015) (citing In re Chatam Int’l Inc., 380 F.3d 1340, 1342-43, 71 USPQ2d 1944, 1946 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). In the present case, the attached evidence shows that the wording PEPPERMINT and LICORICE in the applied-for mark and registered mark are merely descriptive of or generic for applicant’s and  registrant’s goods.  Thus, this wording is less significant in terms of affecting the mark’s commercial impression, and renders the wording ICE the more dominant element of the mark.

 

Additionally, consumers who are familiar with registrant’s LICORICE ICE mark for “candy” who then encounter applicant’s PEPPERMINT ICE mark for “candy; candy mints; mints for breath freshening; chewing gum; chewing gum for breath freshening” may think applicant’s goods are a product line extension of registrant’s goods. See, e.g., Double Coin Holdings Ltd. v. Tru Dev., 2019 USPQ2d 377409, *7 (TTAB 2019) (“ROAD WARRIOR looks, sounds, and conveys the impression of being a line extension of WARRIOR”); Joel Gott Wines LLC v. Rehoboth Von Gott, Inc., 107 USPQ2d 1424, 1433 (TTAB 2013) (“Purchasers of opposer’s GOTT and JOEL GOTT wines are likely to assume that applicant’s goods, sold under the mark GOTT LIGHT and design, are merely a line extension of goods emanating from opposer”); In re Toshiba Med. Sys. Corp., 91 USPQ2d 1266, 1271 (TTAB 2009) (holding that VANTAGE TITAN for MRI diagnostic apparatus and TITAN for medical ultrasound device were confusingly similar and that the addition of applicant’s “product mark,” VANTAGE, to the registered mark would not avoid confusion); Schieffelin & Co. v. Molson Cos., 9 USPQ2d 2069, 2073 (TTAB 1989) (“Those consumers who do recognize the differences in the [BRADOR and BRAS D’OR] marks may believe that applicant’s mark is a variation of opposer’s mark that opposer has adopted for use on a different product.”).

 

The applicant argues that the mark has been improperly dissected. This argument is not persuasive. Marks must be compared in their entireties and should not be dissected; however, a trademark examining attorney may weigh the individual components of a mark to determine its overall commercial impression.  In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1305, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1050 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“[Regarding the issue of confusion,] there is nothing improper in stating that . . . more or less weight has been given to a particular feature of a mark, provided the ultimate conclusion rests on consideration of the marks in their entireties.” (quoting In re Nat’l Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 1058, 224 USPQ 749, 751 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).  Here, the marks have been compared in their entireties and found to be confusingly similar.

 

Applicant has submitted printed or electronic copies of third-party registrations for marks containing the wording ICE presumably to support the argument that this wording is weak, diluted, or so widely used that it should not be afforded a broad scope of protection.  These third party registrations can be grouped into two categories: 1) those for candy; and 2) those for frozen confections.

 

The weakness or dilution of a particular mark is generally determined in the context of the number and nature of similar marks in use in the marketplace in connection with similar goods and/or services.  See Nat’l Cable Tel. Ass’n, Inc. v. Am. Cinema Editors, Inc., 937 F.2d 1572, 1579-80, 19 USPQ2d 1424, 1430 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973).  Evidence of widespread third-party use of similar marks with similar goods and/or services “is relevant to show that a mark is relatively weak and entitled to only a narrow scope of protection” in that particular industry or field.  Omaha Steaks Int’l, Inc. v. Greater Omaha Packing Co., 908 F.3d 1315, 1324, 128 USPQ2d 1686, 1693 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee en 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 1373, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1693 (Fed. Cir. 2005)).

 

However, evidence comprising only a small number of third-party registrations for similar marks with similar goods, as in the present case with respect for the third-party registrations for candy, is generally entitled to little weight in determining the strength of a mark.  See In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1328-29, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1751-52 (Fed. Cir. 2017); AMF Inc. v. Am. Leisure Products, Inc., 474 F.2d 1403, 1406, 177 USPQ 268, 269 (C.C.P.A. 1973).  These few registrations are “not evidence of what happens in the market place or that customers are familiar with them.”  AMF Inc. v. Am. Leisure Prods., Inc., 474 F.2d at 1406, 177 USPQ at 269; In re I-Coat Co., 126 USPQ2d 1730, 1735 (TTAB 2018).  Thus, the few similar third-party registrations submitted by applicant are insufficient to establish that the wording ICE is weak or diluted.  Applicant has attached only five third party registrations for candy that include the term ICE. All of those marks contain distinctive wording (i.e. “DENTYNE”, “POLAR”, “EXTREME”) that differentiate those marks from one another. The mark for LICORICE ICE is the cited registration.

 

Evidence comprising third-party registrations for similar marks with different goods, as in the present case with respect to the third-party registrations for frozen confectionery, has “no bearing on the strength of the term in the context relevant to this case.”  See Tao Licensing, LLC v. Bender Consulting Ltd., 125 USPQ2d 1043, 1058 (TTAB 2017) (citing In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d at 1328, 123 USPQ2d at 1751).  Thus, these third-party registrations submitted by applicant are insufficient to establish that the wording is weak or diluted. With the exception of the mark for THIN ICE, the third party marks for frozen confections disclaim the term ICE and are less relevant in this case. The term ICE is merely descriptive of or generic in the context of those goods for frozen confections and thus takes on a different commercial impression from the applied-for mark and registered mark.

 

Further Registration No. 3933126 for the mark MONSTER ICE is cancelled. See the attached registration. Cancelled or expired third-party registrations have no probative value other than as evidence that the registrations were issued.  See Action Temp. Servs. Inc. v. Labor Force Inc., 870 F.2d 1563, 1566, 10 USPQ2d 1307, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Inn at St. John’s, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1742, 1745 (TTAB 2018), aff’d per curiam, 777 F. App’x 516, 2019 BL 343921 (Fed. Cir. 2019); TBMP §704.03(b)(1)(A). 

 

Moreover, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board have recognized that even marks deemed “weak” or merely descriptive are still entitled to protection under Section 2(d) against the registration by a subsequent user of a similar mark for closely related goods and/or services.  TMEP §1207.01(b)(ix); see King Candy Co. v. Eunice King’s Kitchen, Inc., 496 F.2d 1400, 1401, 182 USPQ 108, 109 (C.C.P.A. 1974); In re Max Capital Grp. Ltd., 93 USPQ2d 1243, 1246 (TTAB 2010).  Thus, this protection under Section 2(d) extends to marks registered on the Supplemental Register.  TMEP §1207.01(b)(ix); see, e.g., In re Morinaga Nyugyo Kabushiki Kaisha, 120 USPQ2d 1738, 1743 (TTAB 2016) (citing Towers v. Advent Software, Inc., 913 F.2d 942, 946, 16 USPQ2d 1039, 1042 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Research & Trademark Corp., 793 F.2d 1276, 1278, 230 USPQ 49, 49 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Clorox Co., 578 F.2d 305, 307-08, 198 USPQ 337, 340 (C.C.P.A. 1978)). Here, PEPPERMINT ICE and LICORICE ICE are highly similar and the goods are identical and legally identical.

 

Consequently, the applicant’s mark and the registrant’s mark are confusingly similar.

 

Relatedness of the Goods

 

The applicant’s goods are “Candy; Candy mints; Mints for breath freshening; Chewing gum; Chewing gum for breath freshening.” The registrant’s goods are “candy.” These goods are related because they are identical in part, legally identical in part, commonly produced by the same entity and marketed under the same mark, sold in the same trade channels, and similar or complementary in terms of purpose and function.

 

The applicant did not make arguments against the finding that the goods are related.

 

The goods 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 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).

 

When analyzing an applicant’s and registrant’s goods for similarity and relatedness, that determination is based on the description of the goods and/or services in the application and registration at issue, not on extrinsic evidence of actual use.  See Stone Lion Capital Partners, LP v. Lion Capital LLP, 746 F.3d 1317, 1323, 110 USPQ2d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Octocom Sys. Inc. v. Hous. Computers Servs. Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 942, 16 USPQ2d 1783, 1787 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). 

 

In this case, the “candy” goods in the application and registration are identical.  Therefore, it is presumed that the channels of trade and class(es) of purchasers are the same for these goods and/or services.  See Cai v. Diamond Hong, Inc., 901 F.3d 1367, 1372, 127 USPQ2d 1797, 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012)).  Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods are related.  

 

Further, the registration uses broad wording to describe “candy,” which presumably encompasses all goods of the type described, including applicant’s more narrow “Candy; Candy mints; Mints for breath freshening; Chewing gum; Chewing gum for breath freshening.”  See, e.g., In re Solid State Design Inc., 125 USPQ2d 1409, 1412-15 (TTAB 2018); Sw. Mgmt., Inc. v. Ocinomled, Ltd., 115 USPQ2d 1007, 1025 (TTAB 2015).  Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods are legally identical.  See, e.g., In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 127 USPQ2d 1627, 1629 (TTAB 2018) (citing Tuxedo Monopoly, Inc. v. Gen. Mills Fun Grp., Inc., 648 F.2d 1335, 1336, 209 USPQ 986, 988 (C.C.P.A. 1981); Inter IKEA Sys. B.V. v. Akea, LLC, 110 USPQ2d 1734, 1745 (TTAB 2014); Baseball Am. Inc. v. Powerplay Sports Ltd., 71 USPQ2d 1844, 1847 n.9 (TTAB 2004)).

 

Additionally, the goods of the parties have no restrictions as to nature, type, channels of trade, or classes of purchasers and are “presumed to travel in the same channels of trade to the same class of purchasers.”  In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1268, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).  Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods are related.

 

Further, the attached Internet evidence, consisting of evidence from Nouria, CandyStore.com, and Wal-Mart shows that Nouria, CandyStore.com, Starburst, Mentos, Ice Breakers, Airheads, and Poprocks produce a variety of candy goods including gum and manufacture the goods under the same mark. This establishes that the same entity commonly manufactures, produces, or provides the relevant goods and markets the goods under the same mark. In addition, the attached Internet evidence from Nouria, CandyStore.com, Dylan’s Candy Bar, and Candy Warehouse shows 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. Finally, attached is evidence from Wal-Mart showing Blo-Pops and Razzles sell candy in which the inside is gum. This establishes that the goods are similar or complementary in terms of purpose or function.  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).

 

Conclusion

 

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).

 

Accordingly, since the applicant’s mark and the registrant’s mark are similar and their goods related, registration must be refused under Trademark Act Section 2(d).

 

How to respond.  Click to file a request for reconsideration of this final Office action that fully resolves all outstanding requirements and refusals and/or click to file a timely appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) with the required filing fee(s).

 

Applicant must respond within six months of the date of issuance of this final Office action or the application will be abandoned.  15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §2.65(a).  Applicant may respond by providing one or both of the following:

 

(1)        A request for reconsideration that fully resolves all outstanding requirements and refusals; and/or

 

(2)        An appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board with the required filing fees.

 

TMEP §715.01; see 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b)(1)-(2).

 

 

/Sarah E. Steinpfad/

Trademark Examining Attorney

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

Law Office 120

sarah.steinpfad@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 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.