To:
`
`Subject:
`
`Sent:
`
`Sent As:
`
`Attachments:
`
`Christiane Voisin (briancrewslaw@gmail.com)
`
`U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 86246330 - JOIE DE VEGAN - N/A
`
`2/3/2015 6:48:59 PM
`
`ECOM113@USPTO.GOV
`
`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
`Attachment - 15
`Attachment - 16
`Attachment - 17
`Attachment - 18
`Attachment - 19
`Attachment - 20
`Attachment - 21
`Attachment - 22
`Attachment - 23
`Attachment - 24
`Attachment - 25
`Attachment - 26
`Attachment - 27
`Attachment - 28
`Attachment - 29
`Attachment - 30
`Attachment - 31
`Attachment - 32
`Attachment - 33
`Attachment - 34
`Attachment - 35
`Attachment - 36
`Attachment - 37
`Attachment - 38
`Attachment - 39
`Attachment - 40
`Attachment - 41
`Attachment - 42
`Attachment - 43
`Attachment - 44
`
`

`

`Attachment - 45
`Attachment - 46
`Attachment - 47
`Attachment - 48
`Attachment - 49
`Attachment - 50
`Attachment - 51
`Attachment - 52
`Attachment - 53
`Attachment - 54
`Attachment - 55
`Attachment - 56
`Attachment - 57
`Attachment - 58
`Attachment - 59
`Attachment - 60
`Attachment - 61
`Attachment - 62
`Attachment - 63
`Attachment - 64
`Attachment - 65
`Attachment - 66
`Attachment - 67
`Attachment - 68
`Attachment - 69
`Attachment - 70
`Attachment - 71
`Attachment - 72
`Attachment - 73
`Attachment - 74
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
`OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION
`
`U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO.   86246330
`
`           
`
`MARK: JOIE DE VEGAN
`
`CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS:
`  
`       BRIAN J. CREWS
`  
`       BRIAN CREWS LAW
`         PO BOX 1677
`           DURHAM, NC 27702-1677
`    
`   
`APPLICANT: Christiane Voisin
`
`*86246330*
`
`CLICK HERE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER:
`http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp
`
`VIEW YOUR APPLICATION FILE
`
`    
`CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO :       
`CORRESPONDENT E-MAIL ADDRESS:       
`
`  N/A
`
`   
`
`briancrewslaw@gmail.com
`
`OFFICE ACTION
`
`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.
`
`ISSUE/MAILING DATE: 2/3/2015
`
`THIS IS A FINAL ACTION.
`
`   
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`This Office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on January 15, 2015.
`
`In a previous Office action dated July 16, 2014, 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:  amend the identification of goods.
`
`The trademark examining attorney has thoroughly reviewed the applicant’s response and determined the following.   The amended identification
`of goods is acceptable; thus, the identification of goods requirement is SATISFIED.  The arguments presented in response to the Section 2(d)
`refusal, however, are unconvincing.  Accordingly, for the reasons set forth below, the refusal under Trademark Act Section 2(d) is now made
`FINAL with respect to U.S. Registration No. 3995685.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b).
`
`SUMMARY OF ISSUES MADE FINAL:
`
`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. 3995685.  Trademark
`Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the enclosed registration.
`
`In the instant case, applicant has applied to register JOIE DE VEGAN for “Vegan and gluten-free bakery goods” in Class 30.
`
`The mark in Registration No. 3995685 is JOIE for “bakery goods” in Class 30.
`
`Trademark Act Section 2(d) bars registration of an applied-for mark that so resembles a registered mark that it is likely a potential consumer
`would be confused, mistaken, or deceived as to the source of the goods of the applicant and registrant.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).  A determination
`of likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d) is made on a case-by case basis and the factors set forth in In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.,
`476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (C.C.P.A. 1973) aid in this determination.  Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Grp., Inc., 637 F.3d 1344, 1349, 98
`USPQ2d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing On-Line Careline, Inc. v. Am. Online, Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 1085, 56 USPQ2d 1471, 1474 (Fed. Cir.
`2000)).  Not all the du Pont factors, however, are necessarily relevant or of equal weight, and any one of the factors may control in a given case,
`depending upon the evidence of record.  Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Grp., Inc., 637 F.3d at 1355, 98 USPQ2d at 1260; In re Majestic
`Distilling Co., 315 F.3d 1311, 1315, 65 USPQ2d 1201, 1204 (Fed. Cir. 2003); see In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d at 1361-62,
`177 USPQ at 567.
`
`In this case, the following factors are the most relevant:  similarity of the marks, similarity and nature of the goods, and similarity of the trade
`channels of the goods.  See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1361-62, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Dakin’s Miniatures Inc. ,
`59 USPQ2d 1593, 1595-96 (TTAB 1999); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.
`
`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 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).
`
` 
`  
` 
` 
` 
`   
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
`

`

`In the instant case, applicant’s mark JOIE DE VEGAN is confusingly similar to the mark JOIE in Registration No. 3995685.  Specifically, the
`word JOIE in the applicant’s mark is identical in sound and appearance to the entirety of the registrant’s mark.
`  Further, as evidenced by the
`translation statements, the shared term conveys the same meaning in both marks: the French word for “joy”.   
`
`Furthermore, this shared term appears at the beginning of the applicant’s mark.   Consumers are generally more inclined to focus on the first
`word, prefix, or syllable in any trademark.  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).  Therefore, purchasers will focus on the initial word JOIE in the applicant’s mark and believe—mistakenly—that the mark
`
`identifies the same source of bakery goods as the registrant’s mark JOIE.  
`
`Moreover, the additional word VEGAN in the applicant’s mark merely describes the nature of applicant’s goods.
`  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 is typically less significant or
`less dominant when comparing marks.  See In re Dixie Rests., Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 1407, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533-34 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re
`Nat’l Data Corp. , 753 F.2d at 1060, 224 USPQ at 752; TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii).  In this case, the applicant has disclaimed the word
`VEGAN, thereby acknowledging that the word merely describes the nature of applicant’s vegan bakery goods.   Thus, the word VEGAN is less
`significant in creating a commercial impression.  
`
`Further, adding wording to a registered mark generally does not obviate the similarity between the compared marks, as in the present case, nor
`does it overcome a likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d).  See Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Jos. E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., 526 F.2d 556, 557,
`188 USPQ 105, 106 (C.C.P.A. 1975) (finding BENGAL and BENGAL LANCER and design confusingly similar); In re Toshiba Med. Sys.
`Corp., 91 USPQ2d 1266, 1269 (TTAB 2009) (finding TITAN and VANTAGE TITAN confusingly similar); In re El Torito Rests., Inc., 9
`USPQ2d 2002, 2004 (TTAB 1988) (finding MACHO and MACHO COMBOS confusingly similar); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iii).  In the present case,
`the marks are identical in part.
`
`And, ultimately, because the registered mark is wholly encompassed within the applicant’s mark, purchasers are likely to understand that
`applicant’s mark JOIE DE VEGAN identifies a line of vegan bakery goods offered by the JOIE brand of bakery goods.  Thus, the marks are
`confusingly similar.
`
`Applicant’s Arguments
`
`Applicant argues that the marks have a different sound and appearance because of the additional words DE VEGAN in the applicant’s mark.  
`This argument is unpersuasive.  Specifically, the applied-for mark encompasses the single word JOIE of registrant’s mark and the additional
`terms DE VEGAN only serve to reinforce the similarity between the marks because, as discussed more fully above, purchasers are likely to
`understand the additional wording as identifying an additional line of vegan bakery items provided by the registrant’s brand.
`
`The applicant also argues that the word VEGAN is the dominant word in the applicant’s mark because purchasers of applicant’s goods are on a
`strict vegan diet and will focus on the word VEGAN when they buy applicant’s goods.   It is without question that purchasers will notice the
`word VEGAN in the applicant’s mark to ensure that they are buying the right food for their diet.   However, purchasers will still understand this
`term as merely describing the nature of the goods provided.  And purchasers do not understand descriptive words—those they are accustomed to
`encountering on all food that they eat—as denoting the source of that food.  Rather, they will believe applicant’s mark identifies the vegan line
`
`of bakery goods provided by the JOIE brand.     
`
`In addition, the applicant argues that the marks in their entireties convey different meanings.  The trademark examining attorney recognizes that
`the applicant’s mark is a parody on the well-known French phrase “joie de vivre”, while the registrant’s mark is not.
`  However,
`notwithstanding the differences between the marks, purchasers are likely to still believe the marks identify the same source of goods.  When
`considered in their entireties—and when used in connection with the identified bakery goods—purchasers are likely to understand that
`applicant’s mark JOIE DE VEGAN identifies a line of vegan bakery goods offered by the JOIE brand of bakery goods.  Thus, despite the
`differences in the marks, purchasers will attribute both marks to the same source of bakery goods.
`
`The applicant also refers to forty-one registrations on the register that include the word “joie” and nine with the phrase “ joie de vivre” to argue
`that purchasers will not be confused by the coexistence of applicant’s and registrant’s marks.  First, please note that mere reference to the
`registrations do not make such registrations part of the record.  To make third party registrations part of the record, an applicant must submit
`copies of the registrations, or the complete electronic equivalent from the USPTO’s automated systems, prior to appeal.  In re Jump Designs
`LLC, 80 USPQ2d 1370, 1372-73 (TTAB 2006); In re Ruffin Gaming, 66 USPQ2d, 1924, 1925 n.3 (TTAB 2002); TBMP §1208.02; TMEP
`§710.03.  Second, 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.  See Nat’l Cable Television 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 weakness or dilution consisting solely of third-party registrations is generally entitled to little weight in determining the strength of a
`mark, because such registrations do not establish that the registered marks identified therein are in actual use in the marketplace or that
`consumers are accustomed to seeing them.  See AMF Inc. v. Am. Leisure Prods., Inc., 474 F.2d 1403, 1406, 177 USPQ 268, 269 (C.C.P.A. 1973);
`In re Davey Prods. Pty Ltd., 92 USPQ2d 1198, 1204 (TTAB 2009); In re Thor Tech, Inc., 90 USPQ2d 1634, 1639 (TTAB 2009); Richardson-
`Vicks Inc. v. Franklin Mint Corp., 216 USPQ 989, 992 (TTAB 1982).  Furthermore, none of the registrations are for bakery goods; accordingly,
`
`none of these registrations would show that the relevant wording is commonly used in connection with the goods at issue.  
`
`Applicant argues that parodies of foreign phrases coexist on the register with the phrases that they parody: specifically, CARPE TIEM and
`CARPE DIEM and MAZEL TOV and MAZEL TOE.  However, prior decisions and actions of other trademark examining attorneys in
`registering other marks have little evidentiary value and are not binding upon the USPTO or the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.  TMEP
`§1207.01(d)(vi); see In re Midwest Gaming & Entm’t LLC, 106 USPQ2d 1163, 1165 n.3 (TTAB 2013) (citing In re Nett Designs, Inc., 236 F.3d
`1339, 1342, 57 USPQ2d 1564, 1566 (Fed. Cir. 2001)).  Each case is decided on its own facts, and each mark stands on its own merits.  See AMF
`Inc. v. Am. Leisure Prods., Inc., 474 F.2d 1403, 1406, 177 USPQ 268, 269 (C.C.P.A. 1973); In re Binion, 93 USPQ2d 1531, 1536 (TTAB 2009). 
`In this case, the evidence shows that when purchasers encounter applicant’s and registrant’s marks used on bakery goods, they will believe the
`marks identify the same source of goods.  Thus, the marks are confusingly similar.
`
`Relatedness of the Goods
`
`When analyzing an applicant’s and registrant’s goods for similarity and relatedness, that determination is based on the description of the goods
`stated in the application and registration at issue, not on extrinsic evidence of actual use.  See Octocom Sys. Inc. v. Hous. Computers Servs. Inc.,
`918 F.2d 937, 942, 16 USPQ2d 1783, 1787 (Fed. Cir. 1990); see also Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1267, 62
`
`USPQ2d 1001, 1004 (Fed. Cir. 2002).  
`
`Absent restrictions in an application or registration, the identified goods are presumed to travel in the same channels of trade to the same class of
`purchasers.  Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Grp., Inc., 637 F.3d 1344, 1356, 98 USPQ2d 1253, 1261 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Hewlett-Packard Co.
`v. Packard Press Inc., 281 F.3d at 1268, 62 USPQ2d at 1005.  Additionally, unrestricted and broad identifications are presumed to encompass all
`goods of the type described.  See In re Jump Designs, 80 USPQ2d 1370, 1374 (TTAB 2006); In re Linkvest S.A., 24 USPQ2d 1716, 1716
`
`(TTAB 1992).  
`
`In this case, the applicant has identified “ vegan and gluten-free bakery goods”, while the registrant has identified “bakery goods”.   The
`registration uses broad wording to describe the goods and this wording is presumed to encompass all bakery goods, including vegan and gluten-
`free bakery goods like those in the applicant’s more narrow identification.   Accordingly, the goods of applicant and the registrant are considered
`related for purposes of the likelihood of confusion analysis.
`
`Moreover, purchasers are accustomed to encountering companies that provide bakery goods and vegan and gluten-free bakery goods.  For
`example, the attached website from Amaru Confections shows that the company provides cakes, cupcakes, and other delectables that are
`“traditional, gluten free, vegan & gf/vegan”.   See http://www.amaruconfections.com/pricing/; see also http://8armsbakery.com/bakery-
`products/whole-sale/; http://www.agscupcakery.com/1cupcakery/AGSCUPCAKERYCUPCAKES.htm;
`http://www.breadsonoak.com/About.html; http://www.abcsmartcookies.com/caramel-delites; http://www.abcsmartcookies.com/GF-cookie-
`councils; http://www.abcsmartcookies.com/thin-mints; http://maescafeandbakery.com/; http://www.solacafe.com/our-ingredients/; http://thai-
`fresh.com/gluten-free-vegan-bakery/; http://www.3tarts.com/faq; http://www.whiterabbitbakery.com/sweet.php.  Accordingly, purchasers are
`likely to be confused as to the source of the goods when they encounter bakery goods and vegan and gluten-free bakery goods offered under
`similar marks.  Thus, the goods are related.
`
`Evidence obtained from the Internet may be used to support a determination under Trademark Act Section 2(d) that goods are related.  See, e.g.,
`In re G.B.I. Tile & Stone, Inc., 92 USPQ2d 1366, 1371 (TTAB 2009); In re Paper Doll Promotions, Inc., 84 USPQ2d 1660, 1668 (TTAB 2007).
`
`In addition, the trademark examining attorney has attached evidence from the USPTO’s X-Search database consisting of a number of third-
`party marks registered for use in connection with the same or similar goods as those of both applicant and registrant in this case.  See U.S.
`Registration Nos.
`4353374, 4482424, 4539922, 4659834, 4546561, 4510704, 4556084, 4611069, and 4573852, which all identify bakery goods and vegan or
`gluten-free bakery goods for use under the same mark.  This evidence shows that the goods listed therein are of a kind that may emanate from a
`single source under a single mark.  See In re Anderson, 101 USPQ2d 1912, 1919 (TTAB 2012); In re Albert Trostel & Sons Co., 29 USPQ2d
`1783, 1785-86 (TTAB 1993); In re Mucky Duck Mustard Co., 6 USPQ2d 1467, 1470 n.6 (TTAB 1988); TMEP §1207.01(d)(iii).  Accordingly,
`when purchasers encounter bakery goods and vegan and gluten-free bakery goods offered under similar marks, they are likely to believe the
`goods come from the same source.  Thus, the goods are related.
`
`Applicant’s Arguments
`
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
`

`

`Applicant argues that the applicant’s and registrant’s goods are not related because applicant only provides vegan and gluten-free goods, while
`the registrant’s goods are only “theoretically vegan and gluten-free.”   However, the question of likelihood of confusion is determined based
`solely on the description of the goods stated 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)).  Accordingly, the examining attorney must presume that
`the registrant provides all types of bakery goods, including those identified in applicant’s more narrow identification.   Thus, the goods are
`essentially identical.
`
`Applicant also argues that consumers of vegan and gluten-free goods are necessarily sophisticated in their buying habits because of their strict
`adherence to a rigid diet and the limited availability of suitable foods.  First, neither the application nor the registration limits its goods to certain
`sophisticated purchasers.  Rather, the applicant’s identification of goods is broad enough to encompass consumers who do not adhere to a rigid
`diet.  Even if the applicant’s goods are consumed solely by knowledgeable consumers, the fact
`that purchasers are sophisticated or
`knowledgeable in a particular field does not necessarily mean that they are sophisticated or knowledgeable in the field of trademarks or immune
`from source confusion.  TMEP §1207.01(d)(vii); see, e.g., Stone Lion Capital Partners, LP v. Lion Capital LLP, 746 F.3d. 1317, 1325, 110
`USPQ2d 1157, 1163-64 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Top Tobacco LP v. N. Atl. Operating Co., 101 USPQ2d 1163, 1170 (TTAB 2011).  The knowledge of
`the consumers does not obviate a likelihood of confusion
`
`In summary, the marks are confusingly similar and the goods are related.  Therefore, purchasers are likely to be confused as to the source of the
`
`goods.  
`
`Accordingly, the refusal under Trademark Act Section 2(d) is now made FINAL with respect to U.S. Registration No. 3995685.  See 15 U.S.C.
`§1052(d); 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b).
`
`RESPONSE GUIDELINES
`
`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 response that fully resolves all outstanding refusals.
`
`(2)      
`
`An appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, with the appeal fee of $100 per class.
`
`37 C.F.R. §2.63(b)(1)-(2); TMEP §714.04; see 37 C.F.R. §2.6(a)(18); TBMP ch. 1200.
`
`In certain rare circumstances, an applicant may respond by filing a petition to the Director pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b)(2) to review
`procedural issues.  TMEP §714.04; see 37 C.F.R. §2.146(b); TBMP §1201.05; TMEP §1704 (explaining petitionable matters).  The petition fee
`is $100.  37 C.F.R. §2.6(a)(15).
`
`If applicant has questions regarding this Office action, please telephone or e-mail the assigned trademark examining attorney.  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.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(c), 2.191; TMEP §§304.01-.02, 709.04-.05. 
`Further, although the trademark examining attorney may provide additional explanation pertaining to the refusal in this Office action, the
`trademark examining attorney may not provide legal advice or statements about applicant’s rights.   See TMEP §§705.02, 709.06.
`
`/Elizabeth F. Jackson/
`Elizabeth F. Jackson
`Trademark Examining Attorney
`Law Office 113
`(571) 272-6396
`Elizabeth.Jackson@uspto.gov
`
`TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER:   Go to http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp.   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. 
`For technical assistance with online forms, e-mail TEAS@uspto.gov.  For questions about the Office action itself, please contact the assigned
`trademark examining attorney.  E-mail communications will not be accepted as responses to Office actions; therefore, do not respond to
`this Office action by e-mail.
`
`All informal e-mail communications relevant to this application will be placed in the official application record.
`
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
`   
` 
` 
` 
`

`

`WHO MUST SIGN THE RESPONSE:  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).  If an applicant is represented by an attorney, the attorney must sign the
`
`response.  
`PERIODICALLY CHECK THE STATUS OF THE APPLICATION:   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/.   Please keep a copy of the TSDR status screen.   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.   For more information on checking
`status, see http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/process/status/.
`
`TO UPDATE CORRESPONDENCE/E-MAIL ADDRESS:  Use the TEAS form at http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/correspondence.jsp.
`
` 
`  
`

`

`Print: Feb 3, 2015
`
`7793528?
`
`DESIGN MARK
`
`Serial Number
`TTSBSZBT
`
`Status
`REGISTERED
`
`Word Mark
`JCIE
`
`Standard Character Mark
`Yes
`
`Registration Number
`3995685
`
`Date Registered
`ZOllXOTXlS
`
`Type of Mark
`TRADEMARK
`
`Register
`PRINCIPAL
`
`A. Justin Lum
`
`Owner
`Lum, Selene INDIVIDUAL UNITED STATES 1005 E. Colorado Blvd. Suite 209
`Pasadena CHLIFORNIA 91106
`
`Mark Drawing Code
`[4]
`STANDARD CHARACTER MARK
`
`GoodsfServioes
`
`G & S: Bakery goods.
`046.
`US
`IC 030.
`Class Status -- ACTIVE.
`First Use: ZOlOKOZKOl. First Use In Commerce: ZOlOHOZHOl.
`
`Translation Statement
`The English translation of "Joie" in the mark is joy.
`
`Filing Date
`2010H02H13
`
`Examining iiiuttorneyr
`ESTRADA, LINDA
`
`Attorney of Record
`
`

`

`Joie
`
`

`

`7*: n Wholesale
` a?
`(3'
`fi'
`3 8armsbakery.com/bakery-productsfwhole-salef
`
`D Web Slice Gallery 3 DellekTimeBeEcpem © U.S. Patent and'lradm
`OPlM Scienlific and... B Credo Relerence Ha.” D STIC OPAC 3 Intellectual Property... D Language Resources D Geaglpahic
`:9 D Other bookmarks
`
`The South Puget Sound's Only Community Supported Bakery
`Tel-irng OEWPI'a, Lacey, Tumwmer (B: Shelton"
`
`
`Contact Us
`
`Wholesale
`B Arms Communin Bakery olfers a variety ol baked goods at wholesale prica for businesses
`interested in carrying our products. Below is a llSl of what‘s available and lirerr prica If you don'l
`see something you're looking for, please contact me and loan probably make it possible.
`
`
`
`Gluuen-tree bread 55.81
`Seed, sunflower-millet buckwheat cinnamon raisin, potato-rosen'iary-ganic‘ olive, challan, darklefi,
`fig amond, rosemary-olive, jalapeno-cheese
`
`Slioinu bread 54.68
`Mulligrain, sunflower millel, potato, granny's‘ sunshine cinnamon-raisin swirl, oatmeal molassa
`jalapeno-onese‘ cracked wheat marbleo rye
`
`Scones ' $1.60 each
`Date-nut cinnamon—raisin, current banana chocolate chip‘ blueberry, apricot-almond
`1121120151135AM
`
`

`

`7*: n Wholesale
`
`2: E
`
`j8armsbakerygomfbalcery-preductsfluholefsale;
`fi'
`(3'
`
`D Web Slice Gallery 3 DeltekTimeBlEcpem © U.S. Patent and'lradm E: OPlM Scientific and... B Credo Relerence Ha.” D STIC OPAC 3 Intellectual Property... D Language Resources D Geaglpahic
`Date-nut, cinnamon-raisin, currant, banana chocolate chip, blueberry, apricot-almond
`
`El
`
`x
`
`«*7 E
`:9 D Other bookmarks
`
`,!
`
`chocolate whfle chocolate-raspberry
`
`cranberry-apple, mixed berry, bluebemr, peach, apricot, pumpkin, strawberry-mubarb
`
`Bars ’ $1.55 each
`Brownies, caramel, lemon, chocolate-nut, oh my goodness, tig, chocolate chip waln ut, rasp berry,
`granola, raspberry-hazelnut, chocolate-peanut butter, sweet potato cheatecake, I love coconut,
`Kan's birthday, happy hiker, peanut butter and jelly, peppermint cheesecake, cranberry-white
`
`Cookies " $1.20 each for large
`$3.57 per dozen small or for the I‘ba—o—cooldes” which is a variety bag of 12
`$2.40 per dozen mini
`Chocolate chip, double chocolate, peanut butter, oatmeal raisin, peanut butter oatmeal, aniseed,
`sesame seed, tn'ple ginger blast, molasses, orange cranberry, almond shortbread, brown sugar
`shortbread, pumpkin chocolate chip, snickerdoodles, ralnforest
`
`Macaroons dipped in chocolate 5 .95 each bag of 3
`
`Crackers 53.55 per 1F2 lb. bag spicy oolenla cheese or sunflower soda
`
`Rolls * S 3.25 tor Ii or 84.58 for 12
`Potato rosemary garlic, squash, tan tans, multigrain, potato, sourdough
`
`Mutfins ‘ $1.60 each
`Banana-nut apple-oat, blueberry crumble, bran, gingerbread, pumpkin-chocolate chip, lemon-
`DODDY 59911
`
`Flies ’ $9.60 each
`Pumpkin, apple, shake the blues away, sweet potato, mixed berry, chocolate-hazelnut, pecan,
`caramel apple, black berry, cranberry-apple, peach crumble, strawberry-rhubarb
`
`Tarts $2.10 each apple, raspberry, blackberry, cherry, caramel-apple, chocolate-hazelnut,
`
`112112015 11:40AM
`
`

`

`ails: n Wholesale
`(3'
`fi'
`rrjgarl'nsbakeryxzomfbakery-productsfwhoIe-salef
`q’fi E
`
`D Web Slice Gallery 3 DellekTimeBlEcpe... © U.S. Patent and'lrad...
`El OPlM Scienlific and... B Credo Relerence Ha... D STIC OPAC 3 Intellectual Property... D Language Resources D Geaglpahic
`:9 D Other bookmarks
`Tarts $2.10 each apple, raspberry, blackberry, cherry, caramel-apple chocolate-hazelnut,
`cranberry-apple. mixed berry, blueheny. peach, apricot, pumpkin, strawberry-rhubarb
`
`Ice cream sandwiches $.90 eac Traditional or gluten free nocolate chip, dauale chocolate.
`molasses, ginger, rainturesl
`
`Granola 517.50 per gallon or $4.70 per bag: Coco-nutty, dale-nut, apple-cinnamon, berries and
`seeds
`
`Savory treats “ $2.10 each
`Greens and feta turnover, broccoli cheese turnover, Mediterranean scones. black bean empanda,
`mini quiche. owe and feta tun-lover, curried potato and pea sarnoea
`
`Quiche $2.10 each
`Veggie-Pannesan. bacon and greens. sausage pepper and mushroom. Broccoli and cheese
`
`Tamales " 4for $5.65 meat or $1.49 each
`4 for 54.50 veggie or $1.19 each
`Chicken, mack Dean
`
`Dough * 53.50 per recipe
`Fina and dough [or other specialty paslries
`
`vegan.
`
`Other items are available such as Cheesecakesl cakes. cinnamon rolls! bread sticks,
`and much more. Some minimum orders for ilems not listed abuve might be
`required.
`
`Please note “mm flavors are available 0” a seasonal basis!
`
`est items available
`
`radklonal, vegan or gluten-free and some are ava
`
`le gluten-free and
`
`11211201511:41AM
`
`

`

`all}: n Wholesale
`
`
`5'
`j8armsbakerygomfbakery-productsfwhole-salef
`fi'
`(3'
`
`D Web Slice Gallery 3 DellekTimeBlEcpem © U.S. Patent and'lrad.“ Q OPlM Scienlific and... B Credo Relerence Ham D STIC OPAC 3 Intellectual Property... D Language Resources D Geaglpahic
`
`X
`
`:9 D Olherbookmarks
`
`
`
`Savory treats “ $2.10 each
`Greens and feta turnover, broccoli cheese lumover, Mediterranean scones black bean empancla,
`minl quiche. olwe and feta tumcwer. currled potato and pea samoea
`
`Quiche $2.10 each
`Veggie-Parmesan bacon and greens‘ sausage pepper and mushroom‘ broccoli and cheese
`
`Tamales * 4 for $5.65 meat or $1.49 each
`4 for 54.50 veggie or $1.19 each
`Chicken, black bean
`
`Dounh * 53.50 per recipe
`Pine and dough [or ulher specialty paslries
`
`Other items are available such as cheesecakes, cakes. cinnamon rolls, bread sticks,
`and much more. Some minimum urder'sfur ilerns not listed «have might be
`required.
`
`Please "are marmme "'3’me are available 0” a seasonal basis!
`
`' Most ltems available in lraclitlonal, vegan or gluten-free and some are available gluten-free and
`vegan!
`
`To place an order please call 360-754-6894M e—mail at jen@sarm5bal<ery com
`
`© 2099 l Cruleliby Sea-Wm Designs.
`
`PmedbyWuIdess
`
`11211201511:43AM
`
`
`
`

`

`x
`Enuras Standardfupcak:
`
`-) C' {i
`-.-V-.-u"\-'»'egscupcaker3,-xcor‘rii.,
`;
`Web Slice Gallery
`DeltekTrme & Expem 9 U5. PatentandTradm _ OPll.-‘lScrentrfic and
`
`
`Credo Reference Ho.‘
`
`STlC C'PAC
`
`Intellectual Property .. I: Language Resources
`
`:3 Geogrpahi:
`
`>>
`
`[3 Other bookmarks
`
`'E_@ _33_
`
`Our 45 Standard Cupcake Flavors
`All Cupcakes are very big,
`at $2.75 and up.
`
`Featuring:
`Red Velvet with :1 Cream Cheese frosting
`Carrot with :1 Cream Cheese frosting
`Vanilla with Chocolate or Vanilla frosting
`Chocolate with Chocolate or Vanilla frosting
`
`Special Announcement:
`
`wt (“up-Lu
`
`with if‘r
`
`Cheese Frosting)
`
`Wedding Cake
`Pops
`
`Red Velvet (Cream
`
`1r'21r‘2l315 B 59 AM
`
`

`

`X
`E OurflS Standard Cupcake
`-)C'fi
`2"“:
`:, ::.:'.—
`., ,
`-.-V-.-v\-'u'.agscupcakeryacorr.‘
`Web Slice Gallery
`Delteleme & Expe... 9 U.S. Patent and Trad...
`
`_ OP]l.-‘lSclentlfic and
`
`
` ' Credo Reference Ho...
`
`STIC C-PAC
`
`Intellectual Property... I: Language Resources
`
`:3 Geogrpehic
`
`>>
`
`[2 Other bookmarks
`
`Carrot Cake
`
`(Cream Cheese
`Frosting)
`
`Smores (Filling)
`
`Chocolate Cannoli
`
`(Filling)
`
`
`
`Rainbow Cookie
`
`(Filling)
`
`‘ll'21r'2l315 ll] 01 AM
`
`

`

`x
`gems Stendardfupcak:
`
`9 C' {i
`-.-‘u'-.-v\-'»'.agscupcakeryearn?.,, 3.:
`_.
`DeltekTrrne& Expe... 9 U.S. PatentandTrad...
`Web Slice Gallery
`
`.
`J:
`_ OPll.-‘lScrentrfic and
`
`
`I‘
`' Credo Reference Ho...
`
`STlC C'PAC
`
`Intellectual Property... I: Language Resources
`
`:3 Geogrpahic
`
`>>
`
`'E_@ ._33
`_
`[2 Other bookmarks
`
`Charlie Brown
`
`(Filling)
`
`Reese Pieces
`
`Butter Finger
`
`. Peanut Butter Cup
`(Filling)
`
`1r'21r'2l3151l] 01 AM
`
`

`

`x
`EOurflSStandardCupcak:
`-)C'fi
` agscupcakeryamr‘rt'i;
`Web Slice Gallery
`DeltekTHne & Expe... 9 U.S. PatentandTrad...
`_ OP]l.-‘lScrentrfic and
`
`
`Credo Reference Ho...
`
`STIC OPAC
`
`Intellectual Property... I: Language Resources
`
`:3 Geogrpahic
`
`>>
`
`[3 Other bookmarks
`
`l: '@-
`
`23
`
`
`
`Oreo Mint
`‘lr'Elr'ZD‘lE‘ 1|] DZ AM
`
`4 Different
`
`Sprinkles
`
`

`

`x
`gems Standardfupcak:
`
`"E-'-i".Zi,"-".'
`55'} ,'.
`9 C' {i
`-.-‘.'-.-v\-'»'.agscupcakeryearn?.,, l
`_
`Web Slice Gallery
`DeltekTrrne& Expe... 9 U.S. PatentandTrad...
`_ OPll.-‘lScrentrfic and
`
`i'
`
`
`Credo Reference Ho...
`
`STlC C'PAC
`
`Intellectual Property... I: Language Resources
`
`:3 Geogrpahic
`
`>>
`
`'E_@ .