To:
`Subject:
`Sent:
`Sent As:
`
`Yu Hao Yao(mickey.yao@tylawgp.com)
`U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 97845314 - MSADELA - TUS123987
`April 22, 2023 05:44:42 PM EDT
`tmng.notices@uspto.gov
`
`Attachments
`
`5644391
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
`Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
`
`U.S. Application Serial No.  97845314
`
`Mark:   MSADELA
`
`Correspondence Address:  
`YU HAO YAO
`TIANYU LAW GROUP, INC.
`9660 FLAIR DR, STE 328
`EL MONTE CA 91731 UNITED STATES
`
`Applicant:   QINGDAO LOVE HAIR PRODUCTS CO.,LTD
`
`Reference/Docket No.  TUS123987
`
`Correspondence Email Address:   mickey.yao@tylawgp.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NONFINAL OFFICE ACTION
`
`Response deadline.  File a response to this nonfinal Office action within three months of the “Issue
`date” below to avoid abandonment of the application. Review the Office action and respond using one
`of the links to the appropriate electronic forms in the “How to respond” section below.
`
`Request an extension.  For a fee, applicant may request one three-month extension of the response
`deadline prior to filing a response. The request must be filed within three months of the “Issue date”
`below. If the extension request is granted, the USPTO must receive applicant’s response to this letter
`within six months of the “Issue date” to avoid abandonment of the application.
`
`Issue date:   April 22, 2023
`
`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.
`
`SUMMARY OF ISSUES:
`
`

`

`•
`
`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. 5644391. 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 and/or services of the parties. See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d). Likelihood of confusion is
`determined on a case-by-case basis by applying the factors set forth in In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours
`& Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973) (called the “du Pont factors”). In re
`i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1322, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1747 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Any evidence of
`record related to those factors need be considered; however, “not all of the DuPont factors are relevant
`or of similar weight in every case.” In re Guild Mortg. Co., 912 F.3d 1376, 1379, 129 USPQ2d 1160,
`1162 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting In re Dixie Rests., Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 1406, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533
`(Fed. Cir. 1997)).
`
`Although not all du Pont factors may be relevant, there are generally two key considerations in any
`likelihood of confusion analysis: (1) the similarities between the compared marks and (2) the
`relatedness of the compared goods and/or services. See In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d at 1322, 123
`USPQ2d at 1747 (quoting Herbko Int’l, Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc., 308 F.3d 1156, 1164-65, 64
`USPQ2d 1375, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2002)); Federated Foods, Inc. v. Fort Howard Paper Co., 544 F.2d
`1098, 1103, 192 USPQ 24, 29 (C.C.P.A. 1976) (“The fundamental inquiry mandated by [Section] 2(d)
`goes to the cumulative effect of differences in the essential characteristics of the goods [or services] and
`differences in the marks.”); TMEP §1207.01.
`
`COMPARISON OF THE MARKS
`
`Marks are compared in their entireties for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation, and
`commercial impression. Stone Lion Capital Partners, LP v. Lion Capital LLP, 746 F.3d 1317, 1321,
`110 USPQ2d 1157, 1160 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin
`Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 1371, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1691 (Fed. Cir. 2005)); TMEP
`§1207.01(b)-(b)(v). “Similarity in any one of these elements may be sufficient to find the marks
`confusingly similar.” In re Inn at St. John’s, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1742, 1746 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re
`Davia, 110 USPQ2d 1810, 1812 (TTAB 2014)), aff’d per curiam, 777 F. App’x 516, 2019 BL 343921
`(Fed. Cir. 2019); TMEP §1207.01(b).
`
`When comparing marks, “[t]he proper test is not a side-by-side comparison of the marks, but instead
`whether the marks are sufficiently similar in terms of their commercial impression such that
`[consumers] who encounter the marks would be likely to assume a connection between the parties.”
`Cai v. Diamond Hong, Inc., 901 F.3d 1367, 1373, 127 USPQ2d 1797, 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting
`Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1368, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1721 (Fed. Cir.
`2012)); TMEP §1207.01(b). The proper focus is on the recollection of the average purchaser, who
`retains a general rather than specific impression of trademarks. In re Ox Paperboard, LLC, 2020
`USPQ2d 10878, at *4 (TTAB 2020) (citing In re Bay State Brewing Co., 117 USPQ2d 1958, 1960
`(TTAB 2016)); In re Inn at St. John’s, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1742, 1746 (TTAB 2018); TMEP
`§1207.01(b); see In re St. Helena Hosp., 774 F.3d 747, 750-51, 113 USPQ2d 1082, 1085 (Fed. Cir.
`
`

`

`2014).
`
`Here, the registered mark is ADELA (Reg. No. 5644391) in standard character form.
`
`The applied-for mark is MSADELA, also in standard character form. 
`
`In this case, the applied-for and registered marks share the identical wording "ADELA."   Marks may be
`confusingly similar in appearance where similar terms or phrases or similar parts of terms or phrases
`appear in the compared marks and create a similar overall commercial impression. See Crocker Nat’l
`Bank v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 228 USPQ 689, 690-91 (TTAB 1986), aff’d sub nom.
`Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 811 F.2d 1490, 1495, 1
`USPQ2d 1813, 1817 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (holding COMMCASH and COMMUNICASH confusingly
`similar); In re Corning Glass Works, 229 USPQ 65, 66 (TTAB 1985) (holding CONFIRM and
`CONFIRMCELLS confusingly similar); In re Pellerin Milnor Corp., 221 USPQ 558, 560 (TTAB
`1983) (holding MILTRON and MILLTRONICS confusingly similar); TMEP §1207.01(b)(ii)-(iii).
`
`Here, the registered mark ADELA (Reg. No. 5644391) is entirely incorporated into the applied-for
`mark MSADELA.   Incorporating the entirety of one mark within another 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 Wella Corp. v. Cal. Concept Corp., 558 F.2d 1019, 1022, 194 USPQ 419, 422
`(C.C.P.A. 1977) (holding CALIFORNIA CONCEPT and surfer design and CONCEPT confusingly
`similar); Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Jos. E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., 526 F.2d 556, 557, 188 USPQ 105,
`106 (C.C.P.A. 1975) (holding BENGAL LANCER and design and BENGAL confusingly similar);
`Double Coin Holdings, Ltd. v. Tru Dev., 2019 USPQ2d 377409, at *6-7 (TTAB 2019) (holding ROAD
`WARRIOR and WARRIOR (stylized) confusingly similar); In re Mr. Recipe, LLC, 118 USPQ2d 1084,
`1090 (TTAB 2016) (holding JAWS DEVOUR YOUR HUNGER and JAWS confusingly similar);
`TMEP §1207.01(b)(iii). 
`
`Further, although the applied-for mark includes the additional letters "MS", this does not obviate the
`similarity of the marks.   Adding a term 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) (holding BENGAL and BENGAL LANCER and design
`confusingly similar); In re Toshiba Med. Sys. Corp., 91 USPQ2d 1266, 1269 (TTAB 2009) (holding
`TITAN and VANTAGE TITAN confusingly similar); In re El Torito Rests., Inc., 9 USPQ2d 2002,
`2004 (TTAB 1988) (holding MACHO and MACHO COMBOS confusingly similar); TMEP
`§1207.01(b)(iii). In the present case, the marks are identical in part.
`
`In sum, the applied-for mark MSADELA has the same commercial impression as the registered mark
`ADELA (Reg. No. 5644391). As such, the marks are confusingly similar.
`
`COMPARISON OF THE GOODS
`
`In a likelihood of confusion determination, the goods and/or services are compared to determine
`whether they are similar, commercially related, or travel in the same trade channels. See Coach Servs.,
`Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1369-71, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1722-23 (Fed. Cir. 2012);
`Herbko Int’l, Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc., 308 F.3d 1156, 1165, 64 USPQ2d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2002);
`TMEP §§1207.01, 1207.01(a)(vi).
`
`
`

`

`The compared goods and/or services need not be identical or even competitive to find a likelihood of
`confusion.  See On-line Careline Inc. v. Am. Online Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 1086, 56 USPQ2d 1471, 1475
`(Fed. Cir. 2000); Recot, Inc. v. Becton, 214 F.3d 1322, 1329, 54 USPQ2d 1894, 1898 (Fed. Cir. 2000);
`TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).  They need only be “related in some manner and/or if the circumstances
`surrounding their marketing are such that they could give rise to the mistaken belief that [the goods
`and/or services] emanate from the same source.”  Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668
`F.3d 1356, 1369, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1722 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting 7-Eleven Inc. v. Wechsler, 83
`USPQ2d 1715, 1724 (TTAB 2007)); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i); see Made in Nature, LLC v. Pharmavite
`LLC, 2022 USPQ2d 557, at *44 (TTAB 2022) (quoting In re Jump Designs LLC, 80 USPQ2d 1370,
`1374 (TTAB 2006)).
`
`Here, the registrant's goods are identified as "cosmetics."
`
`The applicant's goods are identified as " Fragrances; Lipstick; Adhesives for false eyelashes, hair and
`nails; Baby oils; Body and beauty care cosmetics; Depilatory creams; Essential oils; Eye shadow; False
`eyelashes; Laundry bleaching preparations; Nail cosmetics; Shampoo-conditioners; Skin masks; Sun
`tan lotion; Teeth whitening kit."
`
`Determining likelihood of confusion is based on the description of the goods and/or services stated in
`the application and registration at issue, not on extrinsic evidence of actual use.  See In re Detroit
`Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1307, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1052 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing In re
`i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1325, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1749 (Fed. Cir. 2017)).  
`
`In this case, the registration(s) use(s) broad wording to describe its goods as "cosmetics", which
`presumably encompasses all goods and/or services of the type described, including applicant’s more
`narrow identifications for various cosmetic goods, including the lipstick, body and beauty care
`cosmetics, eye shadow, and nail cosmetics identified int he application.  See, e.g., Made in Nature, LLC
`v. Pharmavite LLC, 2022 USPQ2d 557, at *44 (TTAB 2022); In re Solid State Design Inc., 125
`USPQ2d 1409, 1412-15 (TTAB 2018); Sw. Mgmt., Inc. v. Ocinomled, Ltd., 115 USPQ2d 1007, 1025
`(TTAB 2015).  Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods are encompassing and therefore legally
`identical.  See, e.g., In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 127 USPQ2d 1627, 1629 (TTAB 2018) (citing Tuxedo
`Monopoly, Inc. v. Gen. Mills Fun Grp., Inc., 648 F.2d 1335, 1336, 209 USPQ 986, 988 (C.C.P.A.
`1981); Inter IKEA Sys. B.V. v. Akea, LLC, 110 USPQ2d 1734, 1745 (TTAB 2014); Baseball Am. Inc. v.
`Powerplay Sports Ltd., 71 USPQ2d 1844, 1847 n.9 (TTAB 2004)).
`
`Additionally, the goods and/or services of the parties have no restrictions as to nature, type, channels of
`trade, or classes of purchasers and are “presumed to travel in the same channels of trade to the same
`class of purchasers.”  In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir.
`2012) (quoting Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1268, 62 USPQ2d 1001,
`1005 (Fed. Cir. 2002)); Made in Nature, LLC v. Pharmavite LLC, 2022 USPQ2d 557, at *49.  Thus,
`applicant’s and registrant’s goods and/or services are related.
`
`In summary, applicant’s and registrant’s marks create the same commercial impression and their
`respective goods are sufficiently related such that consumers are likely to be confused by the use of
`similar marks on or in connection with these goods. Accordingly, registration must be refused under
`Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.
`
`Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal(s) by
`submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.
`
`

`

`
`RESPONSE GUIDELINES
`
`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.   File a response form to this nonfinal Office action or file a request form for an
`extension of time to file a response.  
`
`
`
`/Laura Taraban/
`Laura Taraban
`Examining Attorney
`LO127--LAW OFFICE 127
`(571) 272-3352
`Laura.Taraban@USPTO.GOV
`
`
`
`RESPONSE GUIDANCE
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Missing the deadline for responding to this letter will cause the application to abandon.  A
`response or extension request must be received by the USPTO before 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time
`of the last day of the response deadline.  Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS)
`system availability could affect an applicant’s ability to timely respond.  For help resolving
`technical issues with TEAS, email TEAS@uspto.gov.
`
`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: Sat Apr 22 2023
`
`87451462
`
`(4) STANDARD CHARACTER MARK
`
`Mark Punctuated
`ADELA
`Translation
`Goods/Services
`
`•
`
`IC 003. US 001 004 006 050 051 052.G & S: Cosmetics. FIRST USE: 20160502. FIRST USE IN
`COMMERCE: 20181005
`
`Mark Drawing Code
`(4) STANDARD CHARACTER MARK
`Design Code
`Serial Number
`87451462
`Filing Date
`20170516
`Current Filing Basis
`1A
`Original Filing Basis
`1B
`Publication for Opposition Date
`20180424
`Registration Number
`5644391
`Date Registered
`20190101
`Owner
`(REGISTRANT) Amelie Skincare LLC LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY COLORADO 0133 Prospector
`Road Suite 4114B Aspen COLORADO 81611 (LAST LISTED OWNER) AMALIA SKIN LIMITED
`LIABILITY COMPANY COLORADO 133 PROSPECTOR RD. SUITE 4114B ASPEN COLORADO 81611
`Priority Date
`Disclaimer Statement
`Description of Mark
`Type of Mark
`TRADEMARK
`Register
`
`

`

`PRINCIPAL
`Live Dead Indicator
`LIVE
`Attorney of Record
`
`

`

`United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
`
`USPTO OFFICIAL NOTICE
`
`Office Action (Official Letter) has issued
`on April 22, 2023 for
`U.S. Trademark Application Serial No.  97845314
`
`A USPTO examining attorney has reviewed your trademark application and issued an Office
`action.  You must respond to this Office action to avoid your application abandoning.  Follow
`the steps below.  
`
`(1)   Read the Office action.  This email is NOT the Office action.  
`
`(2)  Respond to the Office action by the deadline using the Trademark Electronic Application
`System (TEAS).  Your response, or extension request, must be received by the USPTO on or
`before 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time of the last day of the response deadline.  Otherwise, your
`application will be abandoned.  See the Office action itself regarding how to respond.  
`
`(3)  Direct general questions about using USPTO electronic forms, the USPTO website, the
`application process, the status of your application, and whether there are outstanding deadlines
`to the Trademark Assistance Center (TAC).  
`
`After reading the Office action, address any question(s) regarding the specific content to the
`USPTO examining attorney identified in the Office action.  
`
`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 to ensure you receive important USPTO
`notices about your application.  
`
`Beware of trademark-related scams .  Protect yourself from people and companies that
`may try to take financial advantage of you.  Private companies may call you and pretend
`to be the USPTO or may send you communications that resemble official USPTO
`documents to trick you.  We will never request your credit card number or social security
`number over the phone.  Verify the correspondence originated from us by using your
`serial number in our database, TSDR, to confirm that it appears under the “Documents”
`tab, or contact the Trademark Assistance Center.  
`
`•
`
`Hiring a U.S.-licensed attorney .   If you do not have an attorney and are not required to
`
`

`

`have one under the trademark rules, we encourage you to hire a U.S.-licensed attorney
`specializing in trademark law to help guide you through the registration process.  The
`USPTO examining attorney is not your attorney and cannot give you legal advice, but
`
`rather works for and represents the USPTO in trademark matters.   
`
`