PTO- 1957
`
`Approved for use through 11/30/2023. OMB 0651-0050
`
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it contains a valid OMB control number
`
`Response to Office Action
`
`Input Field
`
`SERIAL NUMBER
`
`LAW OFFICE ASSIGNED
`
`MARK SECTION
`
`MARK
`
`LITERAL ELEMENT
`
`STANDARD CHARACTERS
`
`USPTO-GENERATED IMAGE
`
`MARK STATEMENT
`
`EVIDENCE SECTION
`
`        EVIDENCE FILE NAME(S)
`
`       ORIGINAL PDF FILE
`
`       CONVERTED PDF FILE(S)
`       (14 pages)
`
`       ORIGINAL PDF FILE
`
`       CONVERTED PDF FILE(S)
`       (6 pages)
`
`The table below presents the data as entered.
`
`Entered
`
`97060203
`
`LAW OFFICE 305
`
`mark
`
`DINOVITE
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`The mark consists of standard characters, without claim to any particular font style,
`size or color.
`
`evi_241071883-20221123154 125403836_._97060203_DINO
`VITE_OA_Response__LOC__FI NAL_11.23.22.pdf
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\970\602\97060203\xml7\ ROA0002.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\970\602\97060203\xml7\ ROA0003.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\970\602\97060203\xml7\ ROA0004.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\970\602\97060203\xml7\ ROA0005.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\970\602\97060203\xml7\ ROA0006.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\970\602\97060203\xml7\ ROA0007.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\970\602\97060203\xml7\ ROA0008.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\970\602\97060203\xml7\ ROA0009.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\970\602\97060203\xml7\ ROA0010.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\970\602\97060203\xml7\ ROA0011.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\970\602\97060203\xml7\ ROA0012.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\970\602\97060203\xml7\ ROA0013.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\970\602\97060203\xml7\ ROA0014.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\970\602\97060203\xml7\ ROA0015.JPG
`
`evi_241071883-20221123154 125403836_._DINOVITE_EXHI
`BIT_A._word_mark.pdf
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\970\602\97060203\xml7\ ROA0016.JPG
`
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`

`

`       ORIGINAL PDF FILE
`
`       CONVERTED PDF FILE(S)
`       (33 pages)
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\970\602\97060203\xml7\ ROA0017.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\970\602\97060203\xml7\ ROA0018.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\970\602\97060203\xml7\ ROA0019.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\970\602\97060203\xml7\ ROA0020.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\970\602\97060203\xml7\ ROA0021.JPG
`
`evi_241071883-20221123154 125403836_._DINOVITE_EXHI BIT_B.pdf
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\970\602\97060203\xml7\ ROA0022.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\970\602\97060203\xml7\ ROA0023.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\970\602\97060203\xml7\ ROA0024.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\970\602\97060203\xml7\ ROA0025.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\970\602\97060203\xml7\ ROA0026.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\970\602\97060203\xml7\ ROA0027.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\970\602\97060203\xml7\ ROA0028.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\970\602\97060203\xml7\ ROA0029.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\970\602\97060203\xml7\ ROA0030.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\970\602\97060203\xml7\ ROA0031.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\970\602\97060203\xml7\ ROA0032.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\970\602\97060203\xml7\ ROA0033.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\970\602\97060203\xml7\ ROA0034.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\970\602\97060203\xml7\ ROA0035.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\970\602\97060203\xml7\ ROA0036.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\970\602\97060203\xml7\ ROA0037.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\970\602\97060203\xml7\ ROA0038.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\970\602\97060203\xml7\ ROA0039.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\970\602\97060203\xml7\ ROA0040.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\970\602\97060203\xml7\ ROA0041.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\970\602\97060203\xml7\ ROA0042.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\970\602\97060203\xml7\ ROA0043.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\970\602\97060203\xml7\ ROA0044.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\970\602\97060203\xml7\ ROA0045.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\970\602\97060203\xml7\ ROA0046.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\970\602\97060203\xml7\ ROA0047.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\970\602\97060203\xml7\ ROA0048.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\970\602\97060203\xml7\ ROA0049.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\970\602\97060203\xml7\ ROA0050.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\970\602\97060203\xml7\ ROA0051.JPG
`
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`

`

`       ORIGINAL PDF FILE
`
`       CONVERTED PDF FILE(S)
`       (4 pages)
`
`       ORIGINAL PDF FILE
`
`       CONVERTED PDF FILE(S)
`       (3 pages)
`
`DESCRIPTION OF EVIDENCE FILE
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\970\602\97060203\xml7\ ROA0052.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\970\602\97060203\xml7\ ROA0053.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\970\602\97060203\xml7\ ROA0054.JPG
`
`evi_241071883-20221123154 125403836_._DINOVITE_EXHI BIT_C.pdf
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\970\602\97060203\xml7\ ROA0055.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\970\602\97060203\xml7\ ROA0056.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\970\602\97060203\xml7\ ROA0057.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\970\602\97060203\xml7\ ROA0058.JPG
`
`evi_241071883-20221123154 125403836_._DINOVITE_EXHI BIT_D.pdf
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\970\602\97060203\xml7\ ROA0059.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\970\602\97060203\xml7\ ROA0060.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\970\602\97060203\xml7\ ROA0061.JPG
`
`Evidence consists of arguments against the office action refusal. Exhibit A consists
`of the USPTO information on the Applicant's mark as well as the Cited Mark.
`Exhibit B consists of DINO-formative marks that coexist on the Register. Exhibit C
`consists of the definition of the term DYNO. Exhibit D consists of the defintion of
`the term VITES.
`
`CORRESPONDENCE INFORMATION (current)
`
`NAME
`
`COURTNEY JACKSON
`
`PRIMARY EMAIL ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE
`
`iptm@atllp.com
`
`SECONDARY EMAIL ADDRESS(ES) (COURTESY COPIES) NOT PROVIDED
`
`DOCKET/REFERENCE NUMBER
`
`3409-1781
`
`CORRESPONDENCE INFORMATION (proposed)
`
`NAME
`
`Courtney Jackson
`
`PRIMARY EMAIL ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE
`
`iptm@atllp.com
`
`SECONDARY EMAIL ADDRESS(ES) (COURTESY COPIES) NOT PROVIDED
`
`DOCKET/REFERENCE NUMBER
`
`SIGNATURE SECTION
`
`RESPONSE SIGNATURE
`
`SIGNATORY'S NAME
`
`SIGNATORY'S POSITION
`
`SIGNATORY'S PHONE NUMBER
`
`DATE SIGNED
`
`3409-1781
`
`/cj/
`
`Courtney Jackson
`
`Attorney of Record, Missouri Bar Member
`
`314.621.5070
`
`11/23/2022
`
`ROLE OF AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
`
`Authorized U.S.-Licensed Attorney
`
`SIGNATURE METHOD
`
`Sent to third party for signature
`
`FILING INFORMATION SECTION
`
`SUBMIT DATE
`
`Wed Nov 23 16:32:09 ET 2022
`
`USPTO/ROA-XX.XXX.XX.XX-20
`
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`

`

`TEAS STAMP
`
`221123163209085581-970602
`03-800295769a8b1113e1a2bb
`483f587e06c6224bf8e875827
`7b89211a2e12efcdadaa-N/A-
`N/A-20221123162054756180
`
`PTO- 1957
`
`Approved for use through 11/30/2023. OMB 0651-0050
`
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it contains a valid OMB control number
`
`To the Commissioner for Trademarks:
`
`Response to Office Action
`
`Application serial no. 97060203 DINOVITE(Standard Characters, see https://tmng-al.uspto.gov/resting2/api/img/97060203/large) has been
`amended as follows:
`
`EVIDENCE
`Evidence has been attached: Evidence consists of arguments against the office action refusal. Exhibit A consists of the USPTO information on
`the Applicant's mark as well as the Cited Mark. Exhibit B consists of DINO-formative marks that coexist on the Register. Exhibit C consists of
`the definition of the term DYNO. Exhibit D consists of the defintion of the term VITES.
`Original PDF file:
`evi_241071883-20221123154 125403836_._97060203_DINO VITE_OA_Response__LOC__FI NAL_11.23.22.pdf
`Converted PDF file(s) ( 14 pages) Evidence-1Evidence-2Evidence-3Evidence-4Evidence-5Evidence-6
`Evidence-7Evidence-8Evidence-9Evidence-10Evidence-11Evidence-12Evidence-13Evidence-14
`Original PDF file:
`evi_241071883-20221123154 125403836_._DINOVITE_EXHI BIT_A._word_mark.pdf
`Converted PDF file(s) ( 6 pages) Evidence-1Evidence-2Evidence-3Evidence-4Evidence-5Evidence-6
`Original PDF file:
`evi_241071883-20221123154 125403836_._DINOVITE_EXHI BIT_B.pdf
`Converted PDF file(s) ( 33 pages) Evidence-1Evidence-2Evidence-3Evidence-4Evidence-5Evidence-6
`Evidence-7Evidence-8Evidence-9Evidence-10Evidence-11Evidence-12Evidence-13Evidence-14
`Evidence-15Evidence-16Evidence-17Evidence-18Evidence-19Evidence-20Evidence-21Evidence-22
`Evidence-23Evidence-24Evidence-25Evidence-26Evidence-27Evidence-28Evidence-29Evidence-30Evidence-31Evidence-32Evidence-33
`Original PDF file:
`evi_241071883-20221123154 125403836_._DINOVITE_EXHI BIT_C.pdf
`Converted PDF file(s) ( 4 pages) Evidence-1Evidence-2Evidence-3Evidence-4
`Original PDF file:
`evi_241071883-20221123154 125403836_._DINOVITE_EXHI BIT_D.pdf
`Converted PDF file(s) ( 3 pages) Evidence-1Evidence-2Evidence-3
`
`Correspondence Information (current):
`      COURTNEY JACKSON
`      PRIMARY EMAIL FOR CORRESPONDENCE: iptm@atllp.com
`      SECONDARY EMAIL ADDRESS(ES) (COURTESY COPIES): NOT PROVIDED
`
`The docket/reference number is 3409-1781.
`
`Correspondence Information (proposed):
`      Courtney Jackson
`      PRIMARY EMAIL FOR CORRESPONDENCE: iptm@atllp.com
`      SECONDARY EMAIL ADDRESS(ES) (COURTESY COPIES): NOT PROVIDED
`
`The docket/reference number is 3409-1781.
`
`Requirement for Email and Electronic Filing: I understand that a valid email address must be maintained by the owner/holder and the
`owner's/holder's attorney, if appointed, and that all official trademark correspondence must be submitted via the Trademark Electronic
`Application System (TEAS).
`
`

`

`SIGNATURE(S)
`Response Signature
`Signature: /cj/     Date: 11/23/2022
`Signatory's Name: Courtney Jackson
`Signatory's Position: Attorney of Record, Missouri Bar Member
`
`Signatory's Phone Number: 314.621.5070 Signature method: Sent to third party for signature
`
`The signatory has confirmed that he/she is a U.S.-licensed attorney who is an active member in good standing of the bar of the highest court of a
`U.S. state (including the District of Columbia and any U.S. Commonwealth or territory); and he/she is currently the owner's/holder's attorney or
`an associate thereof; and to the best of his/her knowledge, if prior to his/her appointment another U.S.-licensed attorney not currently associated
`with his/her company/firm previously represented the owner/holder in this matter: the owner/holder has revoked their power of attorney by a
`signed revocation or substitute power of attorney with the USPTO; the USPTO has granted that attorney's withdrawal request; the owner/holder
`has filed a power of attorney appointing him/her in this matter; or the owner's/holder's appointed U.S.-licensed attorney has filed a power of
`attorney appointing him/her as an associate attorney in this matter.
`
`Mailing Address:    COURTNEY JACKSON
`   ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP
`
`      7700 FORSYTH BLVD, SUITE 1800
`
`   ST. LOUIS, Missouri 63105
`Mailing Address:    Courtney Jackson
`   ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP
`   7700 FORSYTH BLVD, SUITE 1800
`   ST. LOUIS, Missouri 63105
`
`Serial Number: 97060203
`Internet Transmission Date: Wed Nov 23 16:32:09 ET 2022
`TEAS Stamp: USPTO/ROA-XX.XXX.XX.XX-20221123163209085
`581-97060203-800295769a8b1113e1a2bb483f5
`87e06c6224bf8e8758277b89211a2e12efcdadaa
`-N/A-N/A-20221123162054756180
`
`        
` 
`

`

`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`In re: Applicationof:
`Serial No.:
`Filed:
`International Class:
`Examiner:
`Mark:
`
`MannaPro Products, LLC
`97/060,203
`October 5, 2021
`5
`Kelly M. Ryan, Law Office 305
`DINOVITE
`
`RESPONSE TO NONFINAL OFFICE ACTION
`
`In response to the Office Action issued on May 23, 2022, Applicant respectfully requests
`that the Examining Attorney withdraw the Section 2(d) refusal. For the reasons stated herein,
`Applicant respectfully submits that Applicant’s mark, DINOVITE, U.S. Application Serial No.
`97/060,203 (“Applicant’s Mark”) is not confusingly similar to the mark that is the subject of the
`cited registration, namely, Registration No. 2533243 for the mark, DYNO VITES(the “Cited
`Mark”).
`
`LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
`
`Prior Registration Relied upon by the Office Action
`
`The Office Action refuses registration of Applicant’s Mark on the basis of a likelihood of
`confusion with the Cited Mark under the Trademark Act, § 2(d), 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d). The
`details of the marksat issue are set forth as follows:
`
`Mark
`
`Goods / Class
`
`Serial No. / Reg. No.
`
`Date of First Use
`
`Filing Date
`
`Applicant’s Mark:
`
`December31,
`Animalfeed supplements; nutritional supplements;
`MannaPro
`2001
`dietary supplements, animalfeed additives for use as
`Products, LLC
`DINOVITE (Missouri Limited|nutritional supplements in Class 5
`
`Serial No. 97/060,203
`Liability
`October 5, 2021
`Company)
`
`Reg. No. 2533243
`
`
`
`Cited Mark: Natural Organics,|Nutritional supplementfor adults in the nature ofa April 1, 1980
`
`
`Inc. (New York
`multi-nutrient dietary supplement in Class 5
`Corporation)
`
`DYNO VITES
`
`November 4, 1998
`
`See Exhibit A for copies of the full USPTO recordsfor this application and registration.
`
`There Is No Likelihood of Confusion when the Relevant DuPont Factors Are Considered.
`
`

`

`Applicant and the Examining Attorney agree that the relevant DuPont factors must be
`considered but disagree as to whether the weighing of such factors leads to a conclusionthat a
`likelihood of confusion exists between Applicant’s Mark and the Cited Mark.
`In determining
`whethera likelihood of confusion exists between the marks, Jn re E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co.
`sets forth a numberoffactors that must be considered, including without limitation, (1) the
`similarity of the marks in appearance, sound, connotation, and overall commercial impression;
`(2) the similarity and nature of the goods; (3) the similarity of established, likely-to-continue
`channels of trade; (4) the numberand nature of similar marks in use in connection with similar
`goodsor services; (5) the length of time during and the conditions under which there has been
`concurrent use without evidence of actual confusion; (6) the sophistication of the respective
`purchasers; and (7) the extent of potential confusion. See In re E.J. DuPont de Nemours & Co.,
`476 F.2d 1357, 177 U.S.P.Q. 563 (C.C.P.A. 1973). Based on the facts of this case, Applicant
`respectfully submits that the following relevant DuPont factors weigh in Applicant’s favor:
`
`(1) The widespread concurrent use and registration of other similar marks for identical or
`closely related goods indicates that consumers are able to distinguish marksthat include
`the term DINO or DYNO including the Cited Mark;
`
`(2) When comparing the Applicant’s Mark in its entirety to the Cited Mark in its entirety, the
`distinguishing elements of Applicant’s Mark serveto sufficiently differentiate the marks
`to avoid a potential likelihood of confusion among consumers;
`
`(3) The differences between Applicant’s goods and the goods associated with the Cited Mark
`are sufficient to avoid a likelihood of confusion;
`
`(4) The differences in the channels of trade are such that any potential confusion would
`undoubtedly be avoided;
`
`(5) The sophistication of Applicant and Registrant’s consumers obviates any likelihood of
`confusion between the marks;
`
`(6) The length of time during which there has been concurrent use of Applicant’s mark and
`the Cited Mark without any instance of actual confusion indicates that there is no
`confusion among consumersas to the source of the goods; and
`
`(7) Any potential confusion between Applicant’s Mark and the Cited Mark would be de
`minimus.
`
`For these reasons, which are set forth in detail below, Applicant respectfully requests that
`the Section 2(d) refusal be withdrawn.
`
`I. The Widespread Concurrent Use and Registration of Other Similar Marks for
`Identical or Closely Related Goods Indicates that Consumers Are Able to
`Distinguish Marks for Class 5 Goodsthat Include the Term DINO or DYNO.
`
`

`

`The Office Action concludes that a likelihood of confusion would exist between the
`Applicant’s Mark and the Cited Mark. Notwithstanding, however, the Office Actionfails to
`consider DuPont factor no. 6, namely, the numberand nature of similar marks in use on similar
`goods. Evidenceof third party use of similar marks should be considered in a likelihood of
`confusion analysis because when “the consuming public is exposed to third-party use of similar
`marks on similar goods,it is relevant to show that a mark is relatively weak and entitled to only a
`narrow scope of protection.” Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee
`en 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 1373-74 (Fed. Cir. 2005); TMEP 1207.01 (d)(iii).
`
`In the present case, in addition to the Cited Mark, Applicant is aware of at least 7 federal
`trademarkregistrations and allowed applications for marks comprising the term DINO or DYNO
`that are used in connection with identical or closely related goods, including, without limitation,
`the following:
`
`Status / Key Dates
`
`Key Goods/ Services
`
`Ownership
`Trademark/ Serial
`No. / Registration
`Information
`No. / Disclaimer
`
`
`ADINO
`SN: 90093261
`
`Int'l Class: 05
`(Int'l Class: 05)
`Food supplements; Dietary food supplements; Health food supplements
`
`Henderson,
`Application pending
`Matthew G (United
`publication, September
`6, 2022
`States Individual)
`589 Half Moon
`Office Status: Third
`Extension - Granted
`Court,
`EARLYSVILLE,
`Filed: August 4, 2020
`Virginia 22936
`Register Type: Principal
`United States of
`Register
`America
`DINOCORE and
`Design
`
` Renewed, September
` Int'l Class: 05
`
`
` DYNO-MINS Natural Organics,
`
`
`
`Registered, November
`13, 2018
`Filed: November 17,
`2016
`Registered: November
`13, 2018
`Int'l Reg Date:
`November 17, 2016
`Register Type: Principal
`Register
`
`Int'l Class: 03, 05, 09, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 41, 43
`
`(Int'l Class: 05)
`Household deodorants; bandages for dressings; vitamin supplements;sanitizing
`wipes; nutraceuticals for use as dietary supplements; eye drops; lacteal flour for
`babies; food for babies; babies' napkins being diapers; bandages for skin wounds
`
`Tuba N Co., LTD.
`(Republic of Korea
`Corporation)
`53, Gangnam-daero,
`132-gil, Gangnam-
`gu Seoul 06045
`Republic of Korea
`
`RN: 5603603
`SN: 79203483
`
`
`Int'l Class: 05
`(Int'l Class: 05)
`nutritional and dietary food supplements
`
`DINOSAURS
`RN: 1748086
`SN: 74250434
`
`Renewed, March 15,
`2013
`Office Status:
`Registered and Renewed
`Int'l Class: 05
`First Use: June 8, 1984
`Filed: February 28, 1992
`Registered: January 26,
`1993
`Last Renewal: January
`26, 2013
`Register Type: Principal
`Register
`
`Nutramarks, Inc.
`(Delaware
`Corporation)
`1500 KEARNS
`BOULEVARD,
`SUITE B-200, Park
`City, Utah 84060
`United States of
`America
`
`RN: 1456058
`SN: 73615416
`
`30, 2017
`Inc. (New York
`Office Status:
`Corporation)
`548 Broadhollow
`Registered and Renewed
`Int'l Class: 05
`Road, Melville, NY
`11747 United States
`First Use: July 1, 1986
`of America
`Filed: August 18, 1986
`
`(Int'l Class: 05)
`dietary food supplement
`
`

`

`Trademark/ Serial
`Ownership
`Information
`No. / Registration
`No./ Disclaimer
`
`
`Key Goods/ Services
`
`Status / Key Dates
`
`Registered: September
`8, 1987
`Last Renewal:
`September8, 2017
`Register Type: Principal
`Register
`
`FIT DINOSAURand
`Design
`
`
`
`Registered, September
`12, 2017
`Office Status:
`Registered
`Int'l Class: 05,30,32
`First Use: October14,
`2015
`Filed: April 24, 2016
`Registered: September
`12, 2017
`Register Type: Principal
`Register
`
`Int'l Class: 05, 30, 32
`(Int'l Class: 05)
`Baby foods; Codliveroil; Dietary fiber to aid digestion; Dietary and nutritional
`supplements; Glucose dietary supplements; Lacteal flour for babies; Mineral
`supplements; Powdered milk for babies; Vitamin supplements
`
`Pharmatech Asia
`Group LTD.(China
`Corporation)
`8A City Hotel
`Building Minle
`Science Park,
`Meiban Road,
`Longhua, Shenzhen
`China
`
` Pending Application,
`
`
`
` DR. DINO KIDS Minddose LLC
`
`Published, October 18,
`Knights Toys
`2022
`(California Limited
`Office Status: Published
`Liability Company)
`5524 KEARNY
`For Opposition
`Int'l Class: 05
`VILLA ROAD,
`SAN DIEGO,
`First Use: January 1,
`California 92123
`2022
`United States of
`Filed: February 1, 2022
`America
`Register Type: Principal
`
`Register
`
`RN: 5283607
`SN: 87011952
`
`
`Int'l Class: 05
`(Int'l Class: 05)
`Dietary supplements containing aminoacids
`
`Int'l Class: 05
`(Int'l Class: 05)
`Nutritional supplementfor adults in the nature of a multi-nutrient dietary supplement
`
`Int'l Class: 05
`(Int'l Class: 05)
`Health food supplements; Dietary supplements for urinary health
`
`GIVE HER THE
`DINO'S AMINOS
`SN: 97247873
`
`DYNO VITES
`RN: 2533243
`SN: 75583036
`
`SN: 97211987
`
`Renewed, April 3, 2022
`Office Status:
`Registered and Renewed
`Int'l Class: 05
`First Use: April 1, 1980
`Filed: November4,
`1998
`Registered: January 29,
`2002
`Last Renewal: January
`29, 2022
`Register Type: Principal
`Register
`
`October 31, 2022
`Office Status: Non-Final
`Action - Mailed
`Int'l Class: 05
`First Use: January 1,
`2022
`Filed: January 10, 2022
`Register Type: Principal
`Register
`Note, this is not
`registered yet, but there
`wasnofinding of
`confusing similarity
`with priorregistrations
`or pending applications.
`
`Natural Organics
`Inc. (New York
`Corporation)
`548 Broadhollow
`Road, Melville,
`New York 11747
`United States of
`America
`
`(Delaware Limited
`Liability Company)
`29160 Heathercliff
`Rd Fl 1 #6215,
`Malibu, California
`90264 United States
`of America
`Aref, Azar (United
`States Individual)
`29160 Heathercliff
`Rd Fl 1 #6215,
`Malibu, California
`90264 United States
`of America
`
`

`

`See Exhibit B for copies of the full USPTO records for these applications and
`registrations.
`
`Clearly, marks that include the abbreviated term DINO or DYNOare widely used in
`connection with dietary supplements that fall within International Class 5, and as a result,
`consumersare already alerted to distinguish one particular source of goods from another when
`viewing the marks in their entireties. It is well settled that where the features that are common to
`two marks being compared are weak due to concurrent use by different parties, even minor
`additions or changes to the mark can effectively negate any confusing similarity. See, e.g., In re
`Box Solutions Corp., 79 U.S.P.Q.2d 1953 (T.T.A.B. 2006) (finding no likelihood of confusion
`between the marks BOX and Design and BOX SOLUTIONSand Design, even though the marks
`were used in connection with legally identical goods); Plus Prods. v. Star-Kist Foods, Inc., 220
`U.S.P.Q. 541 (T.T.A.B. 1983) (the differences between the marks PLUS and Design and MEAT
`PLUSwere sufficient to avoid a likelihood of confusion, despite the fact that the only difference
`between the word elements of the marks was the additional descriptive term MEAT).
`
`The Office Action is silent on whether third-party registrations for confusingly similar
`marksare entitled to great weight. However, “extensive third-party use” of a common elementis
`considered impressive evidence andattestation that there would be no likelihood of confusion
`between similar marks. See Sun Banks ofFlorida, Inc. v. Sun Fed. Sav. & Loan Assoc., 651 F.2d
`311, 316, 211 U.S.P.Q. 844 (Sth Cir. 1981). As an example, the Trademark Trial and Appeal
`Board (the “Board”’) previously held that the extensive third party use and adoption of the term
`KEYthereby diluted its trademark significance, and as such, the differences between the marks
`KEY and KEYCHECK, KEY-CARD BANK, KEYBANKER,and CB KEY,all for banking
`services, were sufficient to avoid a likelihood of confusion. Jn re Hamilton Bank, 222 U.S.P.Q.
`174 (TTAB 1984). Similarly, the Board also determined that the existence of numerousthird-
`party registrations indicated that the term GRAND wasa weak formative in the hotel field and
`therefore sufficient to render applicant’s mark distinguishable from the cited mark GRAND
`HOTEL. In re Hartz Hotel Servs. Inc., 102 U.S.P.Q.2d 1150 (T.T.A.B. 2012).
`
`Here, the coexistence and concurrentregistration of multiple marks that include the
`abbreviated term DINO or DYNOused in connection with Class 5 goods demonstrates that such
`marks have a limited scope of protection. Consumers are used to seeing a multitude of marks
`that consist of the prefix DINO or DYNOfor products related to dietary supplements, and they
`understand their implied obligation to consider the marksin their entirety, variations in spelling
`and spacing, and any unique design elements in order to differentiate one source from the other.
`Therefore, Applicant’s use of the term DINOis not confusingly similar to the Cited Mark’s use
`of the term DYNO,particularly within the crowded industry where the terms have a limited
`scope of protection. Thus, the distinguishing elements between the Cited Mark and the
`Applicant’s Mark (as discussed further herein)are critical elements on which consumers will
`focus and, therefore, there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks. Additionally, the
`marks that are included above are for human consumption andare not intended for animal use.
`This further demonstrates that DINO-formative marks, while appearing frequently with human
`dietary supplements, are not used frequently in connection with animal supplements.
`
`

`

`Applicant understands that the Examining Attorney is not bound by the decisions of other
`Examining Attorneys. However, the widespread concurrent use and registration of so many
`marks containing the abbreviated term DINO or DYNOforuse in connection with dietary
`supplements strongly supports a decision to withdraw the Section 2(d) refusal in this case.
`
`II. The Differences Between Applicant’s Mark and the Cited Mark Are Sufficient to
`Avoid a Likelihood of Confusion.
`
`A. Visual and Aural Differences
`
`1 requires the marks to be compared
`The Office Action concedes that DuPont factor no.
`in their entireties. However, in its analysis, the Office Action only seems to compare the marks
`in terms of sound and completely disregards any such comparison in visual appearance or
`connotation. Specifically, the Office Action concludes that Applicant’s Mark and the Cited
`Markare similar simply “because the marksare essentially phonetic equivalents and thus sound
`similar.” The Office Action bases its conclusion on In re Ist USA Realty Prof’ls, Inc., 84
`USPQ2d 1581, 1586 (TTAB 2007), stating: “Similarity in sound alone may besufficient to
`support a finding that the compared marksare confusingly similar.” However, in Jn re /*' USA
`Realty, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board’’) did not hold that marks are
`automatically confusingly similar as a whole if they are similar only in sound. In fact, the Board
`in that case went on to consider the marks at issue from both a visual and connotative perspective
`as well. Thus, Applicant respectfully insists that any proper analysis here must include a
`comparison of the marksin their entireties.
`
`Marks may share common elements but create two sufficiently distinct commercial
`impressions so as to avoid a likelihood of confusion, even if the marks are used in connection
`with identical goods or services. See, e.g., Lever Bros. Co. v. Barcolene Co., 174 U.S.P.Q. 392
`(C.C.P.A. 1972); Shen Mfg. Co. v. Ritz Hotel Ltd., 393 F.3d 1238, 73 U.S.P.Q.2d 1350 (Fed. Cir.
`2004) (RITZ and THE RITZ KIDS create different commercial impressions); Jn re Farm Fresh
`Catfish Co., 231 U.S.P.Q. 495 (T.T.A.B. 1986) (no confusion between CATFISH BOBBERS
`(“CATFISH”disclaimed) for fish and BOBBERforrestaurant services); Jn re Shawnee Milling
`Co., 225 U.S.P.Q. 747 (T.T.A.B. 1985) (no confusion between GOLDEN CRUSTforflour and
`ADOLPH’S GOLD’N CRUST & Design (“GOLD’N CRUST”disclaimed) for coating and
`seasoning for food items); /n re S.D. Fabrics, Inc., 223 U.S.P.Q. 54 (T.T.A.B. 1984) (no
`confusion between DESIGNERS/FABRIC(stylized) for retail fabric store services and DAN
`RIVER DESIGNER FABRICS & Designfor textile fabrics); see also First Sav. Bank, F.S.B. v.
`First Bank Sys., Inc., 101 F.3d 645, 40 U.S.P.Q.2d 1865 (10th Cir. 1996) (“When the primary
`term is weakly protected to begin with, minoralterations may effectively negate any confusing
`similarity between the two marks.”); 4 McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition §
`23:25 (Sth ed.) (“[I]fa word mark is relatively weak, a significantly different display of the same
`word can avoid a likelihood of confusion.”)
`
`It is well-settled law that the first word or syllable in a mark is the prominentfeature. 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). This is because consumersare generally more
`inclined to focus on the first word, prefix, or syllable in any trademark or service mark. See also
`
`6
`
`

`

`Presto Prods., Inc. v. Nice-Pak Prods., Inc., 9 USPQ2d 1895, 1897 (TTAB 1988) (“[I]t 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); Coca-Cola Co. v. Carlisle Bottling Works, 43
`F.2d 101, 114 (E.D. Ky. 1929), aff'd, 43 F.2d 119 (6th Cir. 1930) (“[I]in such cases where the
`front part of the two trade-marks involveddiffer .
`.
`. there is no infringement even thoughthere
`may be similarity amounting to identity in the last parts. It is only a very exceptional case which
`will not be governed bythis rule.”)
`
`Here, the Office Action focuses on the phonetic similarities in the marks but fails to
`consider or even address the distinguishing elements in same. For instance, the Cited Mark
`contains two separate individually recognizable terms or abbreviated terms compared to
`Applicant’s Mark, which is comprised of one single fanciful word, with no independent
`meaning. The space between the words in the Cited Mark results in an entirely different
`commercial impression because the spaceit implies that the first term modifies the second term.
`Thus, the term DYNOservesas an adjective to the abbreviated term VITES.
`
`Additionally, the space between the termsresults in a morestilted pronunciation, with
`each word garnering distinct annunciation. This contrasts with the single word appearance of
`Applicant’s Mark and its smooth pronunciation. Specifically, the space between the termsin the
`Cited Mark forces the consumerto pause for a beat after the term DYNO,thereby resulting in an
`emphasis on thestart of each term (namely, on the syllables DY and VITES). This contrasts with
`the emphasized annunciation of the letter O in Applicant’s Mark. Finally, neither the letter S —
`which arguably makes one of the most distinctive sounds in the English language — nor any
`sound comparableto the letter S appear in the Applicant’s Mark. Thus, even if the Examiner
`chooses to put more weight on the presence of the abbreviated term VITE in both marks, the
`individual contributions of the additional elements — namely, the space in the Cited Mark,the
`emphasis on different syllables, and the additional letter S must be included in any likelihood of
`confusion analysis that properly considers the marksin their entireties.
`
`Despite the presence of the similar lettering VITE, the prominenceofthe distinctivefirst
`lettering in the marks cannot be overlooked or understated especially because it creates a unique
`commercial impression. Consumershavestronger recollections of the first element of a mark,
`and as a result, will readily discern the sources of the goods. See Presto Prods., Inc., 9 USPQ2d
`at 1897. Therefore, the differences in the first word of the Cited Mark, which includesthe letter
`Y, andthefirst syllable of Applicant’s mark, which omits the letter Y but instead contains the
`letter I, are sufficient to eliminate any chance of confusion between the marks. Therefore, the
`differences in the marks, when taken in their entirety, obviate any likelihood of confusion that
`may result between Applicant’s Mark and the Cited Mark.
`
`B. Connotative Differences
`
`When marksproject different meanings when applied to the Applicant and Registrant’s
`goods, a distinct commercial impression results, which overcomesany likelihood of confusion
`even when the marks themselvesare identical. In Re Sears, Roebuck & Co., 2 U.S.P.Q.2d 1312
`(T.T.A.B. 1987). In In Re Sears, Roebuck & Co, the Board held that applicant’s mark “‘CROSS-
`OVER’, when applied to brassieres, [was] suggestive of the construction of the brassieres
`
`

`

`. convey[ed] no such meaning whenapplied to
`.
`[whereas] [rJegistrant's mark ‘CROSSOVER’, .
`ladies' sportswear, namely, tops, shorts, and pants.” /d. In