To:
`
`Subject:
`
`Sent:
`
`Sent As:
`
`Attachments:
`
`Alejandro García Pérez (JeffMFurr@FurrLawFirm.com)
`
`U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 79165761 - OKENE - N/A
`
`11/17/2015 6:52:15 PM
`
`ECOM113@USPTO.GOV
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
`OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION
`
`*79165761*
`
`CLICK HERE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER:
`http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp
`
`VIEW YOUR APPLICATION FILE
`
`U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. (cid:160) 79165761
`
`(cid:160)M
`
`ARK: OKENE
`
`CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS:
`(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160) (cid:160) (cid:160) Jeffrey M. Furr
`(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160) (cid:160) (cid:160) Furr Law Firm
`(cid:160) (cid:160) (cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) 2622 Debolt Road
`(cid:160) (cid:160) (cid:160)(cid:160) (cid:160) (cid:160) Utica OH 43080
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`APPLICANT: Alejandro García Pérez
`
`(cid:160) (cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160) (cid:160) (cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`(cid:160) (cid:160)(cid:160)
`CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO :(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`CORRESPONDENT E-MAIL ADDRESS:(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`(cid:160) N/A
`
`JeffMFurr@FurrLawFirm.com
`
`STRICT DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER
`TO AVOID ABANDONMENT OF APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION, THE USPTO MUST RECEIVE APPLICANT’S
`COMPLETE RESPONSE TO THIS LETTER WITHIN 6 MONTHS OF THE ISSUE/MAILING DATE BELOW.
`
`OFFICE ACTION
`
`(cid:160)I
`
`(cid:160)I
`
`SSUE/MAILING DATE: 11/17/2015
`
`NTERNATIONAL REGISTRATION NO. 1248516
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`he Office has reassigned this application to the undersigned trademark examining attorney.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`This Office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on October 27, 2015 , where applicant:
`
`Provided arguments against the Section 2(d) Refusal
`Amended the identification of goods
`Partial Refusal and Requirement Advisory
`Partial Abandonment Advisory
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`he trademark examining attorney has thoroughly reviewed applicant’s response and has determined the following:
`
`Applicant’s argument s are unpersuasive to overcome the Section 2(d) refusal, and the refusal is continued and maintained
`Applicant’s amended identification for Class 25 is acceptable and made of record
`Applicant’s amended identification for Class 5 still contains indefinite wording. As certain amendments were not previously required,
`there are new issues concerning the Class 5 identification to which applicant must respond
`
`The trademark examining attorney issues the following new requirement in the summary of issues below. See 37 C.F.R. §2.64(a); TMEP
`§714.04. The trademark examining attorney’s arguments and evidence from the initial Office action are incorporated by reference.
`
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`

`

`SUMMARY OF NEW ISSUES that applicant must address:
`
`Identification of Goods Requirement – Specified Class 5 Goods Only
`Advisory – Response to Applicant’s Arguments against the Section 2(d) Refusal
`
`(cid:160)I
`
`DENTIFICATION OF GOODS REQUIREMENT – CLASS 5 ONLY
`
`(cid:160)A
`
`pplicant’s Class 5 identification, as amended, is “Oils for medical use, namely, lavender oil; medicinal oils for babies; poultices; herbal
`compounds for medicinal use; decoctions of medicinal plants; decoctions for pharmaceutical use for treating the colic of infants; homeopathic
`drugs for treating the colic of infants; medicinal herbal extracts; plant extracts for pharmaceutical use; medicinal plant extracts”.
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`he wording “Oils for medical use, namely, lavender oil” in the identification of goods must be clarified because it is too broad and could
`include goods in other international classes.(cid:160) See TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03. Specifically, “lavender oil” is classified in Class 3. Although the
`identification specifies that the goods are for medical use, applicant must more precisely specify that the goods are medicated or medicinal, or
`specify what disease or condition the oils are intended to treat to ensure that the goods are correctly classified.
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`he wording “herbal compounds for medicinal use” in the identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified because the nature of the
`compounds is unclear.(cid:160) See TMEP §1402.01. “Compounds” could refer to, for instance, a drug delivery agent, a pharmaceutical compound, a
`disinfecting compound, or a rubbing compound. Applicant must identify the type of compound with more specificity.
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`he wording “decoctions of medicinal plants” in the identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified because it does not specify the
`disease or condition to be treated.(cid:160) See TMEP §1402.01. Applicant must indicate the intended use of the decoctions.
`
`(cid:160)A
`
`pplicant may adopt the following identification of goods, if accurate:(cid:160) (cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`International Class 5: Oils for medical use, namely, medicinal lavender oil; medicinal oils for babies; poultices; herbal rubbing
`compounds for medicinal use; decoctions of medicinal plants for treating the colic of infants; decoctions for pharmaceutical use for
`treating the colic of infants; homeopathic drugs for treating the colic of infants; medicinal herbal extracts; plant extracts for pharmaceutical
`use; medicinal plant extracts
`International Class 25: Clothing for babies, namely pajamas; children's clothing, namely, pajamas [acceptable as written]
`
`(cid:160)S
`
`ee TMEP §1402.01.
`
`(cid:160)A
`
`n applicant may only amend an identification to clarify or limit the goods, but not to add to or broaden the scope of the goods.(cid:160) 37 C.F.R.
`§2.71(a); see TMEP §1904.02(c)(iv).(cid:160) In an application filed under Trademark Act Section 66(a), the scope of the identification for purposes of
`permissible amendments is limited by the international class assigned by the International Bureau of the World Intellectual Property Organization
`(International Bureau). 37 C.F.R. §2.85(f); TMEP §§1402.07(a), 1904.02(c). If an applicant amends an identification to a class other than that
`assigned by the International Bureau, the amendment will not be accepted because it will exceed the scope and those goods will no longer have a
`basis for registration under U.S. law.(cid:160) TMEP §§1402.01(c), 1904.02(c).
`
`(cid:160)I
`
`n addition, in a Section 66(a) application, an applicant may not change the classification of goods from that assigned by the International
`Bureau in the corresponding international registration.(cid:160) 37 C.F.R. §2.85(d); TMEP §§1401.03(d), 1402.01(c). Further, in a multiple-class Section
`66(a) application, an applicant may not transfer goods from one existing international class to another.(cid:160) 37 C.F.R. §2.85(d); TMEP §§1401.03(d),
`
`1402.01(c).(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`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 at http://tess2.uspto.gov/netahtml/tidm.html. (cid:160) See TMEP §1402.04.
`
`(cid:160)S
`
`ECTION 2(D) REFUSAL – CONTINUED AND MAINTAINED
`
`(cid:160)B
`
`ecause applicant’s arguments against the Section 2(d) refusal are not persuasive, the Section 2(d) refusal is continued and maintained. The
`trademark examining attorney has provided a preliminary response to applicant’s arguments below.
`
`(cid:160)R
`
`esponse to Arguments
`
`(cid:160)C
`
`oncerning the similarity of the marks, the standard for assessing whether the marks are similar is based on the overall impression of the marks,
`not specific differences. When comparing marks, the test is not whether the marks can be distinguished in a side-by-side comparison, but rather
`whether the marks are sufficiently similar in terms of their overall commercial impression that confusion as to the source of the goods offered
`under the respective marks is likely to result.(cid:160) Midwestern Pet Foods, Inc. v. Societe des Produits Nestle S.A., 685 F.3d 1046, 1053, 103 USPQ2d
`1435, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Davia, 110 USPQ2d 1810, 1813 (TTAB 2014); TMEP §1207.01(b).(cid:160) The proper focus is on the recollection
`of the average purchaser, who retains a general rather than specific impression of trademarks.(cid:160) United Global Media Grp., Inc. v. Tseng, 112
`
`(cid:160)
`

`

`USPQ2d 1039, 1049, (TTAB 2014); L’Oreal S.A. v. Marcon , 102 USPQ2d 1434, 1438 (TTAB 2012); TMEP §1207.01(b).
`
`(cid:160)A
`
`pplicant first argues that the marks are not confusing because they are dissimilar in appearance. Although the marks are not identical, they are
`confusingly similar in appearance because both marks begin with the identical and unusual letter combination “OKE”. Consumers are generally
`more inclined to focus on the first word, prefix, or syllable in any trademark or service mark.(cid:160) See Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot
`Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F. 3d 1369, 1372, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1692 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Presto Prods., Inc. v. Nice-Pak Prods., Inc.,
`9 USPQ2d 1895, 1897 (TTAB 1988) (“it is often the first part of a mark which is most likely to be impressed upon the mind of a purchaser and
`remembered” when making purchasing decisions).
`
`(cid:160)I
`
`n this case, purchasers with a general recollection of the marks are unlikely to recall the particular spelling of the marks, but will remember
`marks with wording that begins with the distinctive “OKE” letter combination. Thus, despite the particular differences in spelling, the overall
`appearance of the marks is similar.
`
`(cid:160)A
`
`pplicant also argues that the marks will be pronounced differently because applicant’s mark is likely to be pronounced as a three-syllable word,
`O-KEH-NE, rather than the two-syllable O-KEEN. This argument is unconvincing because purchasers may not pronounce applicant’s mark as
`applicant suggests. There is no correct pronunciation of a mark because it is impossible to predict how the public will pronounce a particular
`mark.(cid:160) See Embarcadero Techs., Inc. v. RStudio, Inc., 105 USPQ2d 1825, 1835 (TTAB 2013) (quoting In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1367,
`101 USPQ2d 1905, 1912 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re The Belgrade Shoe Co., 411 F.2d 1352, 1353, 162 USPQ 227, 227 (C.C.P.A. 1969)); TMEP
`
`§1207.01(b)(iv).(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`Both “-EAN” and “-E[consonant]E” are common spellings of a long “e” sound. The marks in question could clearly be pronounced the same;
`such similarity in sound alone may be sufficient to support a finding that the marks are confusingly similar.(cid:160) In re White Swan Ltd., 8 USPQ2d
`1534, 1535 (TTAB 1988); see In re 1st USA Realty Prof’ls, Inc. , 84 USPQ2d 1581, 1586 (TTAB 2007); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iv).
`
`(cid:160)F
`
`inally, applicant argues that the goods and trade channels are different because applicant sells children’s pajamas, which would be sold at
`children’s stores, but registrant sells shoes, which would be sold at shoe stores. However, neither the application nor the registration contains
`any limitations regarding trade channels for the goods and therefore it is assumed that registrant’s and applicant’s goods are sold everywhere
`that is normal for such items, i.e., clothing and department stores. Thus, it can also be assumed that the same classes of purchasers shop for these
`items and that consumers are accustomed to seeing them sold under the same or similar marks.(cid:160) See Kangol Ltd. v. KangaROOS U.S.A., Inc., 974
`F.2d 161, 23 USPQ2d 1945 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Smith & Mehaffey, 31 USPQ2d 1531 (TTAB 1994); TMEP §1207.01(a)(iii). Moreover,
`children’s clothing stores commonly sell children’s shoes as well clothing. As registrant has broadly identified “shoes,” a term that
`encompasses children’s shoes, applicant’s and registrant’s trade channels are likely to overlap, despite the limitations in applicant’s
`identification. Also, children’s clothing manufacturers commonly produce and sell both children’s pajamas and children’s shoes under the same
`mark. Thus, purchasers are accustomed to encountering both applicant’s and registrant’s goods emanating from the same source.
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`he 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.(cid:160) See In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1208, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1690 (Fed.
`Cir. 1993).(cid:160) Therefore, any doubt regarding a likelihood of confusion determination is resolved in favor of the registrant.(cid:160) 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). As applicant has not overcome doubt regarding the likelihood of confusion,
`the refusal is continued and maintained.
`
`(cid:160)P
`
`ARTIAL REFUSAL AND REQUIREMENT ADVISORY
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`he Section 2(d) refusal refers to International Class25 only and does not bar registration in the other class.
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`he stated refusal refers to the following goods and does not bar registration for the other goods: “Oils for medical use, namely,
`lavender oil; herbal compounds for medicinal use; decoctions of medicinal plants”.
`
`(cid:160)A
`
`pplicant may respond to the stated refusal by submitting evidence and arguments against the refusal.(cid:160) In addition, applicant may respond by
`doing one of the following:
`
`(1)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`Deleting the class and goods to which the refusal and requirement pertains; or
`
`(2)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`Filing a request to divide out the goods that have not been refused registration, so that the mark may proceed toward publication for
`opposition in the class to which the refusal does not pertain.(cid:160) See 37 C.F.R. §2.87.(cid:160) See generally TMEP §§1110 et seq. (regarding the
`requirements for filing a request to divide).(cid:160) If applicant files a request to divide, then to avoid abandonment, applicant must also file
`a timely response to all outstanding issues in this Office action, including the refusal.(cid:160) 37 C.F.R. §2.87(e).
`
`(cid:160)P
`
`ARTIAL ABANDONMENT ADVISORY
`
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`

`

`If applicant does not respond to this Office action within the six-month period for response, the following goods in International Classes 5 and 25
`will be deleted from the application:(cid:160) “Oils for medical use, namely, lavender oil; herbal compounds for medicinal use; decoctions of medicinal
`plants” in Class 5; “Clothing for babies, namely pajamas; children's clothing, namely, pajamas” in Class 25 (entire class will be deleted). The
`application will then proceed with the following goods in International Class 5 only: “M edicinal oils for babies; poultices; decoctions for
`pharmaceutical use for treating the colic of infants; homeopathic drugs for treating the colic of infants; medicinal herbal extracts; plant extracts
`for pharmaceutical use; medicinal plant extracts.” (cid:160) See 37 C.F.R. §2.65(a)-(a)(1); TMEP §718.02(a).
`
`(cid:160)R
`
`ESPONSE GUIDELINES
`
`(cid:160)F
`
`or this application to proceed toward registration, applicant must explicitly address each refusal and requirement raised in this Office action.(cid:160) If
`the action includes a refusal, applicant may provide arguments and/or evidence as to why the refusal should be withdrawn and the mark should
`register.(cid:160) Applicant may also have other options for responding to a refusal and should consider such options carefully.(cid:160) To respond to
`requirements and certain refusal response options, applicant should set forth in writing the required changes or statements.
`
`(cid:160)I
`
`f applicant does not respond to this Office action within six months of the issue/mailing date, or responds by expressly abandoning the
`application, the application process will end, the trademark will fail to register, and the application fee will not be refunded.(cid:160) See 15 U.S.C.
`§1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.65(a), 2.68(a), 2.209(a); TMEP §§405.04, 718.01, 718.02.(cid:160) Where the application has been abandoned for failure to
`respond to an Office action, applicant’s only option would be to file a timely petition to revive the application, which, if granted, would allow
`the application to return to active status.(cid:160) See 37 C.F.R. §2.66; TMEP §1714.(cid:160) There is a $100 fee for such petitions.(cid:160) See 37 C.F.R. §§2.6,
`2.66(b)(1).
`
`(cid:160)I
`
`f applicant has questions regarding this Office action, please telephone or e-mail the assigned trademark examining attorney.(cid:160) All relevant e-
`mail communications will be placed in the official application record; however, an e-mail communication will not be accepted as a response to
`this Office action and will not extend the deadline for filing a proper response.(cid:160) See 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(c), 2.191; TMEP §§304.01-.02, 709.04-
`.05.(cid:160) Further, although the trademark examining attorney may provide additional explanation pertaining to the refusal and requirement in this
`Office action, the trademark examining attorney may not provide legal advice or statements about applicant’s rights.(cid:160) See TMEP §§705.02,
`709.06.
`
`/Marynelle W. Wilson/
`Examining Attorney
`Law Office 113
`Phone: 571-272-7978
`Email: marynelle.wilson@uspto.gov
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`O RESPOND TO THIS LETTER: (cid:160) Go to http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp. (cid:160) Please wait 48-72 hours from the
`issue/mailing date before using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), to allow for necessary system updates of the application.(cid:160)
`For technical assistance with online forms, e-mail TEAS@uspto.gov.(cid:160) For questions about the Office action itself, please contact the assigned
`trademark examining attorney.(cid:160) E-mail communications will not be accepted as responses to Office actions; therefore, do not respond to
`this Office action by e-mail.
`
`(cid:160)A
`
`ll informal e-mail communications relevant to this application will be placed in the official application record.
`
`(cid:160)W
`
`HO MUST SIGN THE RESPONSE:(cid:160) It must be personally signed by an individual applicant or someone with legal authority to bind an
`applicant (i.e., a corporate officer, a general partner, all joint applicants).(cid:160) If an applicant is represented by an attorney, the attorney must sign the
`
`response.(cid:160)(cid:160)
`PERIODICALLY CHECK THE STATUS OF THE APPLICATION: (cid:160) To ensure that applicant does not miss crucial deadlines or official
`notices, check the status of the application every three to four months using the Trademark Status and Document Retrieval (TSDR) system at
`http://tsdr.uspto.gov/. (cid:160) Please keep a copy of the TSDR status screen. (cid:160) If the status shows no change for more than six months, contact the
`Trademark Assistance Center by e-mail at TrademarkAssistanceCenter@uspto.gov or call 1-800-786-9199. (cid:160) For more information on checking
`status, see http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/process/status/.
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`O UPDATE CORRESPONDENCE/E-MAIL ADDRESS:(cid:160) Use the TEAS form at http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/correspondence.jsp.
`
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)
`

`

`To:
`
`Subject:
`
`Sent:
`
`Sent As:
`
`Attachments:
`
`Alejandro García Pérez (JeffMFurr@FurrLawFirm.com)
`
`U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 79165761 - OKENE - N/A
`
`11/17/2015 6:52:18 PM
`
`ECOM113@USPTO.GOV
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
`
`IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING YOUR
`U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION
`
`USPTO OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) HAS ISSUED
`ON 11/17/2015 FOR U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 79165761
`
`Please follow the instructions below:
`
`(cid:160)(
`
`1)(cid:160) TO READ THE LETTER:(cid:160) Click on this link or go to http://tsdr.uspto.gov, enter the U.S. application serial number, and click on
`“Documents.”
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`he Office action may not be immediately viewable, to allow for necessary system updates of the application, but will be available within 24
`hours of this e-mail notification.
`
`(cid:160)(
`
`2)(cid:160) TIMELY RESPONSE IS REQUIRED:(cid:160) Please carefully review the Office action to determine (1) how to respond, and (2) the applicable
`response time period.(cid:160) Your response deadline will be calculated from 11/17/2015 (or sooner if specified in the Office action).(cid:160) For information
`regarding response time periods, see http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/process/status/responsetime.jsp.
`
`(cid:160)D
`
`o NOT hit “Reply” to this e-mail notification, or otherwise e-mail your response because the USPTO does NOT accept e-mails as
`responses to Office actions.(cid:160)
`Instead, the USPTO recommends that you respond online using the Trademark Electronic Application System
`(TEAS) response form located at http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp.
`
`(cid:160)(
`
`3)(cid:160) QUESTIONS:(cid:160) For questions about the contents of the Office action itself, please contact the assigned trademark examining attorney.(cid:160) For
`technical assistance in accessing or viewing the Office action in the Trademark Status and Document Retrieval (TSDR) system, please e-mail
`TSDR@uspto.gov.
`
`WARNING
`
`(cid:160)F
`
`ailure to file the required response by the applicable response deadline will result in the ABANDONMENT of your application.(cid:160) For
`more information regarding abandonment, see http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/basics/abandon.jsp.
`
`PRIVATE COMPANY SOLICITATIONS REGARDING YOUR APPLICATION:(cid:160) Private companies not associated with the USPTO are
`using information provided in trademark applications to mail or e-mail trademark-related solicitations.(cid:160) These companies often use names that
`closely resemble the USPTO and their solicitations may look like an official government document.(cid:160) Many solicitations require that you pay
`
`“fees.” (cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`Please carefully review all correspondence you receive regarding this application to make sure that you are responding to an official document
`from the USPTO rather than a private company solicitation.(cid:160) All official USPTO correspondence will be mailed only from the “United States
`Patent and Trademark Office” in Alexandria, VA; or sent by e-mail from the domain “@uspto.gov.” (cid:160) For more information on how to handle
`private company solicitations, see http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/solicitation_warnings.jsp.
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)
`