To:
`
`Subject:
`
`Sent:
`
`Sent As:
`
`Attachments:
`
`WHITE, JONATHAN (frank.knizner@bevlaw.com)
`
`U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 90141406 - AMP-ER-SAND - TM1395-T
`
`December 28, 2020 11:59:02 PM
`
`ecom117@uspto.gov
`
`Attachment - 1
`Attachment - 2
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
`Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
`
`U.S. Application Serial
`No. 90141406
`
`     
`
`Mark:   AMP-ER-SAND
`
`Correspondence
`Address: 
`Frank Knizner
`Lehrman Beverage Law
`Suite 303
`2911 Hunter Mill Road
`Oakton VA 22124
`Applicant:   WHITE,
`JONATHAN
`
`    
`
`Reference/Docket No.
`TM1395-T
`
`   
`
`Correspondence Email
`
`Address:  
`
`frank.knizner@bevlaw.com
`
`The USPTO must receive applicant’s response to this letter within six months of the issue date below or the application will be abandoned. 
`Respond using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS).   A link to the appropriate TEAS response form appears at the end of this
`
`NONFINAL OFFICE ACTION
`
`Office action.  
`
`Issue date:  December 28, 2020
`
`The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney.  Applicant must respond timely and completely to
`the issue(s) below.  15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(a), 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.
`
`PRELIMINARY AMENDMENT(S)
`
`This letter responds to applicant’s communications, both filed on October 27, 2020.   The following matters have been entered in the record: 
`amendment of the mark.
`
`SEARCH
`
`The trademark examining attorney searched the USPTO database of registered and pending marks and found no conflicting marks that would bar
`registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d).  15 U.S.C. §1052(d); TMEP §704.02.
`
`SECTION 2(D) – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION REFUSAL
`
` 
` 
` 
`  
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
`

`

`Registration of the applied-for mark AM-PER-SAND is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No.
`3374373 (AMPERSAND).  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the 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 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.  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.   
`
`Comparison of Marks
`
`In a likelihood of confusion determination, the marks in their entireties are compared for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation, and
`commercial impression.  In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1323, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2017); 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)); In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476
`
`F.2d 1357, 1361, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973); TMEP §1207.01(b)-(b)(v).  
`
`  In fact, the applicant’s mark is merely the
`In the present case, applicant’s mark is AM-PER-SAND and registrant’s mark is AMPERSAND.
`term AMPERSAND (identical to the registrant’s mark) broken into syllables, as explained in the applicant’s October 27, 2020 preliminary
`response.  These marks share the same letters, are identical in sound and meaning, “and have the potential to be used . . . in exactly the same
`manner.”   In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 116 USPQ2d 1406, 1411 (TTAB 2015), aff’d, 866 F.3d 1315, 123 USPQ2d 1744 (Fed. Cir. 2017). 
`Additionally, because they are virtually identical, these marks are likely to engender the same connotation and overall commercial impression
`when considered in connection with applicant and registrants’ respective goods.   Id.
`
`Therefore, the marks are confusingly similar.  
`
`Comparison of Goods
`
`The registrant markets “Wine”.
`
`The applicant plans to market “Wine.”
`
`When analyzing an applicant’s and registrant’s goods for similarity and relatedness, that determination is based on the description of the goods
`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 goods in the application and registration(s) are identical.  Therefore, it is presumed that the channels of trade and class(es) of
`purchasers are the same for these goods.  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.   
`
`Purchasers or potential purchasers, upon seeing these highly similar marks used on and in conjunction with similar goods, are likely to believe
`
`that the goods emanate from the same source. This, of course, would lead to confusion in the marketplace.  
`
`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).
`
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
`

`

`Thus, the mark is refused registration on the Principal Register.  Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond
`
`to the refusal(s) by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.  
`
`PLEASE NOTE:
`
`Please call or email the assigned trademark examining attorney with questions about this Office action.  Although an examining attorney cannot
`provide legal advice, the examining attorney can provide additional explanation about the refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) in this Office action. 
`
`See TMEP §§705.02, 709.06.  
`
`The USPTO does not accept emails as responses to Office actions; however, emails can be used for informal communications and are included in
`
`the application record.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(c), 2.191; TMEP §§304.01-.02, 709.04-.05.    
`How to respond.   Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action.        
`
`/C. Skye Young/
`Trademark Examining Attorney
`Law Office 117
`(571) 272-9713
`skye.young@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.
`
` 
`   
` 
` 
`

`

`Print: Dec 2B, 2020
`
`78935264-
`
`DESIGN MARK
`
`serial Number
`T8935264
`
`Status
`REGISTERED AND RENEWED
`
`Word Mark
`AHSERSAND
`
`Standard Character Mark
`Yes
`
`Registration Number
`3314313
`
`Date Registered
`zooexolxzz
`
`T‘ype at Mark
`TRADEMARK
`
`Register
`PRINCIPAL
`
`Mark Drawing Code
`[4]
`STANDARD CHARACTER MARK
`
`Owner
`LEVY & HCCLELLAN FAMILY TRUST TRUST CALIFORNIA 9.0. BOX 524 ST. HELENA
`CALIFORNIA 94 5'." 4
`
`GoodsfServiees
`G & S: Wine. First
`04? 049.
`US
`IC 033.
`Claee Statue -- ACTIVE.
`Use: 2001f11f14. First Use In Commerce: 2001Kllfl4.
`
`Filing Date
`2006HDTH21
`
`Examining Mttizlrneyr
`MEIER, SHARON
`
`Attdmey of Record
`Me lvi 1 1 e Owen
`
`

`

`AMPERSAND
`
`

`

`To:
`
`Subject:
`
`Sent:
`
`Sent As:
`
`Attachments:
`
`WHITE, JONATHAN (frank.knizner@bevlaw.com)
`
`U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 90141406 - AMP-ER-SAND - TM1395-T
`
`December 28, 2020 11:59:04 PM
`
`ecom117@uspto.gov
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
`
`USPTO OFFICIAL NOTICE
`
`Office Action (Official Letter) has issued
`on December 28, 2020 for
`U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 90141406
`
`Your trademark application has been reviewed by a trademark examining attorney.  As part of that review, the assigned attorney has
`issued an official letter that you must respond to by the specified deadline or your application will be abandoned.  Please follow the
`steps below.
`
`(1)  Read the official letter.
`
`(2)   Direct questions about the contents of the Office action to the assigned attorney below.   
`
`/C. Skye Young/
`Trademark Examining Attorney
`Law Office 117
`(571) 272-9713
`skye.young@uspto.gov
`
`Direct questions about navigating USPTO electronic forms, the USPTO website, the application process, the status of your
`application, and/or whether there are outstanding deadlines or documents related to your file to the Trademark Assistance Center
`(TAC).
`
`(3)  Respond within 6 months (or earlier, if required in the Office action) from December 28, 2020, using the Trademark Electronic
`Application System (TEAS).  The response must be received by the USPTO before midnight Eastern Time of the last day of the
`response period.  See the Office action for more information about how to respond
`
`GENERAL GUIDANCE
`·       Check the status of your application periodically in the Trademark Status & Document Retrieval (TSDR) database to avoid
`missing critical deadlines.
`
`·       Update your correspondence email address,
`application.
`
`if needed,
`
`to ensure you receive important USPTO notices about your
`
`·       Beware of misleading notices sent by private companies about your application.  Private companies not associated with
`the USPTO use public information available in trademark registrations to mail and email trademark-related offers and notices –
`most of which require fees.   All official USPTO correspondence will only be emailed from the domain “@uspto.gov.”
`
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
`  
` 
`   
` 
` 
`   
`