Request for Reconsideration afier Final Action
`
`Page 1 of 8
`
`PTO F arm (Rev 4/2000)
`OMB No llfi5l—.
`(Em 03/3112004)
`
`Inn: at Field
`
`SERIAL NUMBER
`LAW OFFICE ASSIGNED
`
`MARK SEC'I'ION (no change)
`ARGUMENT(S)
`
`Request for Reconsideration after Final Action
`
`The table below presents the data as entered.
`
`Entered
`
`77866424
`LAW OFFICE 117
`
`- plicant:
`
`Pctsmart Store Support Group, Inc.
`
`LAW OFFICE 117
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`crial No.:
`
`77/866424
`
`iled:
`
`ark:
`
`lass:
`
`November 5, 2009
`
`SHVIPLY NOURISH
`
`31
`
`Examining Attorney:
`Em°5t sh°5h°
`
`REQUEST FOR
`RECONSIDERATION
`
`This document responds to the Final Ofiice Action issued on July 22, 2010 regarding the application by Petsmart Store Support Group, Inc. (the ‘‘Applicant’’) for
`registration ofthe mark SIMPLYNOURISH in Class 31 (the “Mark”).
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`No Likelihood ofcontirsion.
`
`The examining aflorney has continued to refuse registration ofthe Mzrk based on an alleged likelihood of confusion with the marks in two prior registrations The
`relevant factors in determining whether confusion is likely between two marks include the strength ofthe cited marks and the similarity between the marks. See. e.g., I_n_re
`E.L DuPont dc tjcmours Q Co , 476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973). These factors will be considered below for both registrations.
`(I)
`Strength ofthe Cited Marks.
`If a cited trademark is considered to be “weak", “only slight ditferences in the marks may be sufiicient to distinguish one from the other." In re Melville Corp., 18
`U.S.P.Q.2d 1386, 1388 (T.T.A.B. 1991). A mark may be weak either conceptually, by having an immediately suggestive relationship to the identified goods, or
`commercially, by being one ofseveral marks sharing the seine term forbroadly related goods. See, e.g., Palm Bay; Imports Inc. V. Veuve Clicgunt Ponsardin Maison Fopdee
`En I Z72, 396 F.3d 1369, 1393 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“Evidence oftliird-paty use of similarmarks on similar goods is relevant to show that a mark is relatively weak and entitled
`to only anarrow scope ofprotection"); In re Simulation Techniques, Inc., 2002 WL 31375542 (T.T.A.B. 2002) (unpublished) (“regi§rant’s ‘CIMTEST’ mark is highly
`suggestive ofthe control system its software provides with respect to simulatortesting ofautomotive electronic parts, and thus is “accordingly [a] weak markfl meriting only
`a lim ited ambit ofprotection“).
`The inherent strength or weakness ofaterm can be shown through dictionary definitions, which may be used to show the relevance ofaterm to the identified goods.
`See e.g.. In re Central Soya Co. Inc., 220 U.S.P.Q. 914 (’1'.T.A.B. 1984) Here. “noun'sh" means “to sustain with food or nun-iment". E the attached dictionary definition.
`I.n connection with pet food, the function ofwhich is to sustain apet, this term has an obvious mid immediate highly suggestive relationship to the identified goods. Highly
`srggestive marks are only entitled to anarrow scope ofprotection. See. e.g., In re General Motors go;-9., 23 U.S.P.Q.2d 1465, 1469 (T.T.A.B. 1992) (finding no likelihood
`ofconfusion between GRAND PRIX for automobiles and GRAND PRIX for automotive pans and products, in pan because of“the inherent weakness in a laudatory, highly
`suggestive mrrk such as ‘GRAND PRIX‘‘‘)
`In addition, the term “nourish" is frequently used in the marketplace to describe pet food products. Makers and users ofpet food ofien refer to the expected benefits
`ofrhe products as nourishing or nourishment, and that the goods nourish pets. & the attached evidence consisting ofmultiple inter-net printouts of such use (highlighting of ‘
`terms added) This frequent descriptive use of“nourish“ demonstrates that there is an immediate relationship between the cited marks and the identified goods. The
`evidence shows that the cited marks are conceptually extremely weak and thus only entitled to avery narrow scope ofprotection.[l]
`The cited marks are also commercially weak because they share the same term or a close variation with other marks for identical, highly similar aid closely related
`goods In a crowded field. minute difi'ei-ences between marks may be suflicient to avoid a likelihood ofconfusion.
`In re Melville Com. at 1388.
`It is well settled that third-
`party registrations are relevant to the detennination ofthe strength of a tenn or component. While such prior registrations do not evidence actual use of the noted marks,
`they are similar to dictionaries in that they provide evidence tha the term has a commonly understood meaning among the relevant consumers and is weak. Q; In re Box
`Solutions Cog:_n., 79 U.S.P.Q.2d 1953 (T.T.A.B. 2006) (“third-party registrations can be used in the manner ofa dictionary definition to illustrate how a term is perceived in
`the trade or industry"). Further, actual use ofa number ofthird-party marks containing a term in the relevant field provides additional evidence ofthe inherent wedmess of
`that tenn. See., e.g., In re E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d at 1361; Palm Bay Imports Inc. v. Veuve Clicguot Ponsanlin, 396 F.3d at 1369 (third pa'ty use of
`similar marks “conditions or educates consumers to distinguish between diflerent marks on the bases ofminimal differences").
`Accordingly, only slight differences between the cited marks and the Mark are suflicierrt to distinguish the nrarks. See, e.g., In re Dayco Prods. -Egglernotive Inc., 9
`U.S.P.Q.2d 1910, 1911-12 (T.T.A.B. 1988) (weakness ofthe “Imperial" mark served to “‘ tip the scales’ in favor of finding no likelihood of confusion" even though marks
`were identical and used in connection with “related products having potentially overlapping trade channels and classes ofpurchasers").
`As shown in the table below, several use-based registrations (including the cited marks) and common law marks that include “NOURISH“, orahighly similar
`
`file://\\ticrs-ais-01\ticrsexport\HtmlToTilTInput\RFROO01201 1_0 1_26_14_00_20__WS 194...
`
`1/26/201 1
`
`

`
`Request for Reconsideration after Final Action
`
`Page 2 of 8
`
`variaion ofthat term, currently co-exist for pet food and highly similar or closely related goods.[2] Further, the attached intemet printouts referenced in the table
`show actual use in the marketplace of both registered and common lawmarks lhd include “NOURISI-I“ oravariation of that term for identical, highly similar or closely
`related goods.
`
`APP- N°/ Goods
`Reg. No.
`3496487 NOURISH
`Animal
`feed.
`namely
`livestock
`fee d, horse
`feed and pet
`food; non-
`rnedzcated
`additiv e:
`for anim Al
`feed
`Nou-
`medzeated
`animal feed
`additives;
`animal feed.
`namely,
`lxVl!3KOCk.
`fee d. horse
`feed, pet
`food
`Foodstuffs
`for animals
`
`3485897 NOURISH
`
`
`
`3058217 NOURISH
`EVERY
`HEARTBEAT,
`LOVE EVERY
`BITE
`STIR UP A
`NOURISHING
`MEAL
`Common NOLTRJSIHNG
`FAMILIES
`
`ENRICHING
`LIVES. EVERY
`DAY.
` Comm on
`ORIJEN
`NOURISH AS
`
`3245407
`
`Common THE
`Law
`NOURISHING
`
`Given the frequent use and registration ofNOURISH, and its vrriations, for the same, highly similar and closely related goods, the cited marks must he considered
`commercially weak in addition to conceptually weak. As such, the cited marks are entitled to avery narrow scope of protection.
`(2)
`Cbnwarrxrz ofthe Marks.
`Comparison ofthe marks must focus on the marks in their entireties. See, e.g., Sgice Islands Inc. V. Fmnk Tea & Spice Co., 505 F.2d 1293, 184 U.S.P.Q. 35
`(C.C.P.A 1974); In re Electmlfle Labs, Inc., 16 U.S.P.Q.2d 1239, 1240 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“No clement ofa mark is ignored simply because it is less dominant. or would not
`have trademark significance ifused alone").
`The Mark is SIMPLY NOURISH, while the marks in the cited registrations are NOURISH and NOURIS}-I (stylized), both owned by North American Nutrition
`Companies, Inc. The cited make are not identical in sight. sound or meaning to the Mark. Further, the addition of the term SIMPLY distinguishes the Mark visually and
`
`file://\\ticrs-ais-O1\ticrsexpo1t\HtmlToTilTlnput\RFR000 1201 l_0 1_26_l4_00_20_WS 194...
`
`1/26/2011
`
`Owner/Comments
`North Americanllunidon
`Compiniel. Inc.
`
`North Arriericau Nutrinon
`Companies, Inc.
`
`The Iams Company
`
`Pet food
`
`Del Monte Corporation
`
`Petfood
`and treat:
`
`Pet food
`
`Pet food.
`treats and
`‘“"F““
`Pet food
`
`use
`Del Monte Corporation
`hctp://www.delmonte corn/braridal
`(screen shot of webpnge mashed)
`
`at
`
`Champion Perfoods Ltd. Located in
`Canada,
`but
`sales
`in
`the U.S.:
`http://www.knrzndogzhet/cat_fcod.htrn
`(copy of webpage attached)
`In use I! http'//www nuhemp com!’
`(copy of webpage attached)
`
`In use at
`http:I/www.k9cuirine. com/p -170-
`holistic-select-large -giant-breed-
`nourish -puppy-foodnspsr (copy of
`webpage attached)
`
`Dogfood
`
`In use at www.ultraholistic.cern
`(screen shot of webpage attached)
`
`Pet food
`
`Pet food
`
`Pet
`supplements
`
`Fish
`supplement
`
`Pet treats
`and mpplicl
`
`In use at
`http://www.hil|spetcomlproducts/science
`~d1et html (copy ofwebpuge attached)
`In use at
`http:I!www.narurnlnoun rhmeutn et/Pro ducts.htrr,
`co of web V: e attached
`In U59 at
`http:l/www.pertogethers.coml (c opy
`ofwebpnge attached)
`Seachem Laboratories. Inc, sold :5:
`http://www.n:ia.rine depot.eomlps_ViewItem.aspsr7
`categoly=Seai:liem_NoI1riBlt_Spr:i:i rrlty_AdditiveI_Suyplernznl.r_For_Fisli&v mo. r-Seach me; rlProdui:l.=SC45l 3&.IdCategory=FWADSAFS&tnb=0
`screen shot of web - «; 2 attached)
`In use at
`http:/lwwwtheuouruhinghand com/store/7
`e=l6 (copy of webpage attached)
`
`Comm on5SS‘222
`Common S‘J22
`
` D md
`Desin
`NOURISH
`YOUR PET
`INSIDE & OUT.
`HOLISTIC
`SELECT _
`
`Comm on
`
`Comm on
`Law
`
`Ié? lg&'REED
`NOURISH
`PUPPY FOOD
`NOURISH
`YOUR “IHOLE
`DOG FROM
`HEAD TO PAW
`NOURISH
`YOURHAPPY
`LONG LIFE
`TOGEIHER.
`Common NATURAL
`Law
`NOURISHIVIENT
`Common NOURISI-I
`Law
`EDUCATE
`THRIVE
`Common NOURISI-I
`E2
`
`'
`
`

`
`Request for Reconsideration afier Final Action
`
`Page 3 of 8
`
`'1'he first part ofamark tends
`aurally from the cited marks and creates adifi'erent commercial impression, particularly wit:h SIMPLY being the first term ofthe Mark.
`to be where consumers focus their attention. See e.g., Presto Pmds.,1nc v. Nice—Pal< Prods, Inc., 9 U.S.P.Q.2d 1895, 1897 (T.T.A.B. 1988) (the first part ofamark is “a
`matter ofsome importance since it is often the first part of amark which is most likely to be impressed upon the mind ofapurchaser and remembered"). In addition to the
`difierence created by the term SIMPLY. the Mark also differs in appearance and meaning £rom the eitedNOUR.ISI-I (stylized) mark, which has replaced the “O" in the mark
`with aheart. ‘Hie Mark does not have this or any similar design element. Thus, the NOURISH (stylized) mark is visually different from the Mark and creates a commercial
`impression ofnourishing with love. or with cardiac health benefits, wherem the Mark creates no such impression. Instead, in connection with pet food and treats. the Mark
`cI'eates the impression of sustenance that is simple and uncomplicated
`While Applicant acknowledges that the Mark and the cited marks share the common (but weak) temt “Nourish“, this similarity does not result automatically in a
`finding that the marks in their entireties are sufficiently similarto find confusion likely, especially in the context ofaerowded field and weak marks. Palm Bay I.mpot1sInc.,
`73 U.S.P.Q.2d at 1694 (third pa-ty use of similar marks conditions or educates consumers to distinguish between different marks on the bases ofminimal differences).
`CONCLUSION
`
`Based on the weak nature ofthe cited ma'ks and the differences between the Mark and the cited marks, the Applicant respectfitlly submits that confusion between the
`Mark and the cited mzrks is simply not likely.
`'1he Applicant, therefore respectfully requests that the refiisal ofthe registration be withdrawn and the application for the
`Mark be passed to publication. Should my questions remain with respect to the above, please contaa James L. Vma.
`DATED: January 24, 2011.
`
`[1] Applicant’: rtatementr regarding the weaknert ofthe prior regirtered markr do not constitute collateral attack: on the validity of there vegistnti om.
`[2] Copies of the noted registrati cm are attached
`EVIDENCE SECTION
`
`EVIDENCE FILE NAMI(S)
`
`ORIGINAL
`PDF FILE
`CONVERTED
`PDF FILE(S)
`(20 ll uses)
`
`ORIGINAL
`PDF FILE
`CONVERTED
`PDF FlI.E(S)
`633 P axes)
`
`hflp://tgate/PDF/RFR/201 1/01/24/201 1012419100601 1858-77866424-003_001/evi__198221004-
`1440l4635_._SimplyNourish_Evidence.pdf
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT11\IMAGEOUT11\778\664\77866424\xm|2\RFR0002.JPG
`
`\\TICR.S\EXPORT1l‘IMAGEOUTl l\778\664\77866424\xm l2\R.FR0003.JPG
`\\'IICR.S\EXPORT11\IMAGEOUTl 1\778\664\77866424\xml2\RFR0004.JPG
`\\TICRS\EXPORT1l‘.D\/IAGEOUTI l\778\664\77866424\xml2\RFR0005.JPG
`
`\\'1'ICRS\EXPORT1l\IMAGEOUT11\778\664\778664 24\xm l2\RFR0006.JPG
`\\'1'ICRS\EXPORTll\IMAGEOUTl1\778\664\77866424\xm l2\R.F'R00O7.JPG
`\\'I'ICRS\EXPORT1l\J.MAGEOUTl1\778\664\77866424\xml2\RFR0008.JPG
`\\'I'ICRS\EXPOR'I‘1l\1M.AGEOUTl l\778\664\77866424\xml2\RFR0009.JPG
`\\'l'ICRS\EXPORT1l\.IMAGEOUTl l\778\664\77866424\xml2\RFR0010..TPG
`\\'1'ICRS\EXPORT1l\IMAGEOU'1'11\778\664\77866424\xml2\RFR001l.JPG
`\\'I'ICRS\EXPORT11\I'MAGEOUT1l\778\664\77866424\xrnl2\RFR0012.JPG
`\\TICRS\EXPOR'I'1l\IMAGEOUTl 1\778\664\77866424\xml2\RFR0013..TP
`\\'IICRS\EXPORT1 l‘.IMAGEOUTl l\778\664\77866424\xm l2\RFR00 l4.J'PG
`\\TICRS\EXPORT1l\IMAGEOUTl1\778\664\77866424\xml2\RFR0015..TPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT1l\I1\/IAGEOUT1l\778\664\77866424\xml2\RFR0016.JPG
`\\'1'ICRS\EXPORT1l\IMAGEOU'1'1 1\778\664\778664Z4\xml2\RFR00l7.JPG
`\\TICRS\EXPORT1l\IMAGEOUT1l\778\664\77866424\xml2\R.FR0018.JPG
`\\'I'ICRS\EXPORT1l\IMAGEOUT11\778\664\77866424\xml2\RFR00l9.JPG
`\\'1'ICRS\EXPOR'I‘1l
`GEOU'1'11\778\664\7786 424\xm l2\RFR0020.JPG
`\\TlCRS\EXPORTl l\lMAGEOUT1 l\778\664\778664'Z4\xm l2\RF'R 002 l..lPG
`
`http://tgate/PDFIRFR/2011/01/24/‘20l1012419l006011858 -77866424-003__002/evi_198221004-
`14401463 5_._SimplyNomish_DescriptiveU se.pd1'
`
`\\'I‘lCRS\EXPORTll\IMAGEOUT1l\778\664\778664Z4\xml2\RFRO022..TPG
`
`\\'I'ICRS\EXPORT11\IMAGEOU'1'1 1\778\664\77866424\xml2\RFR0023.J'PG
`\\'1'ICRS\EXPORT1l\IMAGEOU'1'11\778\664\778664 24\xm l2\RFR0024 .J'PG
`\\'1'ICR.S\EXPORT1l\.IMAGEOU'1'11\778\664\77866424\xml2\RFR0025..TPG
`\\'l'ICRS\EXPORT11‘lMAGEOUT11\778\664\77866424\Kml2\RFR0026..TPG
`\\'1'ICRS\EXPORT1l\IMAGEOUT11\778\664\77866424\xml2\RFR0027.JPG
`\\'I'ICRS\EXPORT1l\IMAGEOU'I'1l\778\664\77866424\xml2\RFR0028..TPG
`\\'1'ICRS\EXPORTll\IMAGEOUT11\778\664\77866424\xml2\RFR0029..lPG
`\\'I'lCRS\EXPORT11‘.IMAGEOU'I‘l1\778\664\77866424\xml2\RFR0030.J'PG
`
`file://\\ticrs-ais-01\ticrsexpo1’t\HtmlToTifflnput\RFRO00 1 201 1_0 l_26_14_0O_20_WS 194...
`
`1/26/2011
`
`

`
`Request for Reconsideration afier Final Action
`
`Page 4 of 8
`
`\\'1'1CRS\EXPORT1l\1MAGEOUT11\778\664\77866424\xm l2\RFR0031.J'PG
`\\TICR.S\EXPORT11\IMAGEOUT11\778\664\77866424\xml2\RFR0032.J'PG
`\\'I'[CRS\EXPORT1l\IMAGEOUT11\778\664\77866424\xm l2\RFR0033.JPG
`\\'11CF.S\EXPORT11‘.1MAGEOUT11\778\664\77866424\xml2\RFR0034.JPG
`
`\§'1'ICRS\EXPORT1 l\IMAGEO Q '1'11§'.'78\664\77866424\xm l2\RFR00§§,JP§
`\\'1'1CR.S\EXPORT11\IMAGEOUT11\778\664\77866424\xm l2\RFR0036.JPG
`\\'1'1CRS\EXPORT11\IMAGEOUT1 1\778\664\77866424\xm l2\RFR0037.J1’G
`\\T1CRS\EXPORTl 1\IMAGEOUT1 1\778\664\77866424\xml2\RFR0038.JPG
`\\T1CRS\EXPORT11\IMAGEOUT11\778\664\77866424\xml2\RFR0039.JPG
`
`\\'I'ICRS\EXPORTl1\IMAGEOU'1'11§778\664\77866424\xm l2\RFR0030.JPG
`\\TICRS\EXPORTl1\IMAGEOUT11\778\664\77866424\xml2\RFROO4LJP
`\\'1'ICRS\EXPORT11\IMAGEOUT1 1\778\664\77866424\xml2\RFR0042.JPG
`\\'1'ICRS\EXPORT11\IMAGEOUT11\778\664\77866424\xm 12\RFR0043.JPG
`\\'1'1CRS\EXPORT11\IMAGEOUT1 l\778\664\77866424\xml2\RFR004-1.J'PG
`\\TICRS\EXPORT11\IMAGEOUT1 l\778\664\77866424\xm12\RFR0045.JPG
`\\'1'1CRS\EXPORT11\IMAGEOUT1 l\778\664\77866424\xml2\RFR0046.J'PG
`\\TICRS\EXPORT11\IMAGEOUT1l\778\664\77866424\xml2\RFR0047..TPG
`\\TlCRS\EXPORT11\IMAGEOUT1l\778\664\77866424\xml2\RFR0048.JPG
`\\'1'ICRS\EXPORT11\IMAGEOU'1‘11\778\664\77866424\xml2\RFR0049..TPG
`\\'l'1CRS\EXPORT11‘1M.AGEOUT1 l\778\664\77866424\xm12\RFR0050.JPG
`\\TICRS\EXPORT1l\IMAGEOU'1'11\778\664\77866424\xm12\RH1005l.J'PG
`
`\\'1'ICRS\EXPORT1l\1MAGEOU'1'l 1\778\664\77866424\xm12\RFR0052..TPG
`\\TICRS\EX1’ORT1l\IMAG UT11 778\66 \778664 24\x.ml2\RFR0053.JPG
`\\'I'1CRS\EXPORT11\IMAGEOUT11\778\664\77866424\xml2\RFR0054.JPG
`
`http://tgale/PDFIRFR/201 1/01/Z4/Z0110124191006011858 -77866424 -003_003/evi__198221004-
`144014635_._Simp1yNourish_DescriptiveUse2.pdf
`
`\\T1CRS\EXPORTl1\IMAGEOUT11\778\664\77866424\xm l2\RFROQ55.JPG
`
`\\'I'ICRS\EXPORT11\IMAGEOU'I'1l\778\664\77866424\xm12\RFRQ056.JPG
`\\'I'IC§\EXPORT11\IMAGEOUTl1\778\664\77866424\xm12\RFR0057.JPG
`\\TlCRS\EXPOR'I'l1\IMAGEOUT1l\778\664\778664’Z4\xm|2\RFRO(158..IPG
`\\'1'1CRS\EX1’ORT11\1I\/IAGEOUT1 l\778\664\77866424\xml2\RFR0059..TPG
`\\'I'1CRS\EXPORT1 1\IMAGEOUT1 l\778\664\77866424\xm 12\RFR0060.JPG
`\\'I'ICRS\EXPORT11\IMAGEOUT1l\778\664\77866424\xm 12\RFR006l.JPG
`
`\\'I'ICRS\EXPORT1l\I1\/IAGEOUTI1\778\664\7'I866424\xmj£FR0062.JPG
`\\'I'ICRS\EXPORT11\IMAGEOUT11\778\664\77866424\xm l2\RFR0063.JPG
`\\'I'lCRS\EXPORT11\1MAGEOUTll\778\664\77866424\xm 12\RFR0064.JPG
`\\TICRS\EXPORT11\IMAGEOUT11\778\664\77866424\xml2\RFR0065.JPCv
`
`\\T1CRS\EXPORT11\1MAGEOUTl1\778\664\77866424\xml2\RFR0066.JPG
`\\'I'ICRS\EXPORTl 1\IMAGEOUT1 l\778\664\778664 24\xm l2\RFR0067.J'PG
`
`\\'1'ICRS\EXPOR'I'l1\IMAGEOUTl1\778\664fl78664 24\xm 12\RFROQ68..TPG
`
`Evidence in the form ofU.S. Regis1ra1ions.Brand Use and Descriptive Use
`
`/James L. Vanal
`Jacnes L, Vana
`
`Attorney ofrecord, Washington State bar member
`01/M/2011
`YES
`N0
`
`Mon Jan 2419:10:06 EST 2011
`
`ORIGINAL
`PDF FILE
`CONVERTED
`PDF 1-‘ILE(S)
`(14 p ages)
`
`DESCRIPTION 017 EVIDENCE FILE
`SIGNATURE SECTION
`RESPONSE SIGNATURE
`SIGNA'1‘ORY'S NAME
`
`SIGNA1‘0RY‘S POSITION
`DATE SIGNED
`AUTHORIZED SIGNAT ORY
`CONCURRENT APPEAL NOTICE FILED
`FILING INFORMATION SECTION
`SUBMIT DATE
`
`file://\\ticrs-ais-0 1\ticrsexport\HtmlTOTifi'Input\RFR0001201 l_01_26_14_OO_20_WS 194...
`
`1/26/2011
`
`

`
`Request for Reconsideration afier Final Action
`
`Page 5 of 8
`
`TEAS STAMP
`
`
`
`USPTO/RFR-198.22.100.4-20
`11012419100601 1858-778664
`24-4804b99ccdf4bc8cIibeaac
`4ca80bd49ei'2n-N/A-N/A-201
`10124 144014635432
`
`
`
`
`
`PTO Form (Rev ([2000)
`OMB No, 0651-.... (Exit 9013112005)
`
`Request for Reconsideration after Final Action
`
`To the Commissioner for Trademarks:
`
`Application serial no. 77866424 has been amended as follows:
`
`‘
`ARGUMENT(S)
`In response to the substantive reflual(s), please note the following:
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`LAW OFFICE 117
`
`Examining Attorney:
`Em“! 550550
`
`REQUEST FOR
`RECONSIDERATION
`
`
`
`ipplicant:
`
`Petsmart Store Support Group, Inc.
`
`-erialNo.:
`
`77/866424
`
`'i1ed:
`
`/l8!‘l(:
`
`November 5, 2009
`
`SIMPLY NOURISH
`
`31
`
`This document responds to the Final Oflice Action issued on July 22, 2010 regarding the application by Petsman Store Support Group, Inc. (the “Applicant") for
`regianition ofthe mark SIIVIPLYNOURISH in Class 31 (the “Mark“).
`i
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`No Likelihood ofconfirsion.
`'I‘he examining attorney hm continued to refuse registration ofthe Mark based on an alleged likelihood ofconfusion with the marks in two prior registriiions. The
`relevant factors in determining whether confusion is lfltely between two marks include the strength ofthe cited marks and the similarity between the marks. See, e.g., fig
`El, DuPont dc Nemgurs & C0,. 476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973) These factors will be considered below for both rcgistrations.
`(1)
`Strength ofthe Cited.’ Marks.
`Ifa cited trademark is considered to be “weak", “only slight differences in the marks may be sufficient to distinguish one from the other.“ In re Melville Cgp., 18
`U.S.P.Q.2d 1386, 1388 ('1'.T.A.B. 1991). A mark may be weak either conceptually, by having on immediately suggestive relationship to the identified goods, or
`commercially, by being one ofseveral marks sharing the same term forbroadly related goods. See e.g., Palm Bay Imgorts Inc. v. Veuve Clicgi_iot Ponsardin Maison Fondee
`lg: 1ZZ2. 396 F.3d 1369. 1393 (Fed Cir. 2005) (“Evidence of third-party use of sirnilarmarks on similar goods is relevant to show that amark is relatively wed< and entitled
`to only anarrow scope ofprotection"); In re Simulation Technigueg, Inc., 2002 WL 31375542 (T.'I‘.A.B. 2002) (unpublished) (“registraifls ‘CIMTEST’ mark is highly
`suggestive ofthe control system its software provides with respect to simulatortesting of automotive electronic parts, andthus is “accordingly [ti] weak mark[] meriting only
`a limited ambit ofprotection").
`The inherent strength or weakness ofatemi can be shown through dictionary definitions, which may be used to show the relevance ofa term to the identified goods.
`See, e.g., In re Central Soya Co. Inc., 220 U.S.P.Q. 914 ('l'.T.A.B. 1984). Here, “nourish“ means “to sustain with food or nutriment". _Sg the attached dictionary definition.
`In connection with pet food. the function ofwhich is to sustain apet, this term has an obvious and immediate highly suggestive relationship to the identified goods Highly
`suggestive marks are only entitled to anarrow scope ofprotection. See, e.g., In re General Motors Corp, 23 U.S.P.Q.2d 1465, 1469 (T.T.AB. 1992) (finding no likelihood of
`confusion between GRAND PRIX for automobiles and GRAND PRIX for automotive parts and products. in part because of“the inherent weakness in ti laudatory, highly
`suggestive mark such as ‘GRAND PRIX"’).
`In addition, the term “nourish" is frequently used in the marketplace to describe pet food products. Makers and users of pet food often refer to the expected benefits of
`the products as nourishing or nourishment, and that the goods nourish peta. E the attached evidence consisting ofmultiple iriternet printouts of such use (highlighting of
`terms added). This frequent descriptive use of“nourish" demonstrates that there is an immediate relationship between the cited marks and the identified goods. The evidence
`shows that the cited marks are conceptually extremely weak aid thus only entitled to avery narrow scope ofprotection.[1]
`The cited marks are also commercially weak because they share the same term or a close variation with other marks for identical, highly sim ilar and closely related
`In a crowded field, minute difierences between marks may be suflicient to avoid a likelihood of confusion.
`In re Melville Corp., :1 1388.
`It is well settled that tlrird—
`goods.
`paty registrations we relevant to the determination of the strength of a term or component. While such prior registrations do not evidence actual use oftbe noted marks, they
`re similarto dictionaries in that they provide evidence that the term has a commonly understood meaning among the relevant consumers and is weak, 1;; In re Box
`Solutions Corp, 79 U.S.P.Q.2d 1953 ('I'.T.A.B. 2006) (“third-party registrations can be used in the manner tifa dictionary defmition to illustrue how a lenn is perceived in
`the trade or industry"). Further, actual use ofa number of third-party marks containing a term iii the relevant field provides additional evidence ofthe inherent weakness of
`that term. See., e.g., In re E.I. Du Pout deNe.-rrrours & Co., 476 F.2d at 1361; Pahn Bay Iniports Inc. v. Veuve Clicguot Potisaniiri, 396 F.3d at 1369 (third party use of similar"
`marks “conditions or educates consumers to distinguish between ditferent marks on the bases ofminirnal differences“)
`Accordingly, only slight diflerences between the cited marks and the Mark are sufficient to distinguish the marks. See, eg., In re Dayco Prods. -E_aglem otive Inc., 9
`U.S.P.Q.2d 1910, 1911-12 (T.T.A.B. 1988) (weakness ofthe “Imperial” mark sewed to “‘tip the scales’ in favor offinding no likelihood ofconfusion" even though marks
`
`file://\\ticrs-ais-01\ticrsexport\HtmlToTifiInput\RFRO00 120 1 1_0 1_26_14_OO_20_WS 194...
`
`1/26/201 1
`
`

`
`Request for Reconsideration afier Final Action
`
`Page 6 of 8
`
`were identical and used in connection with “related products having potentially overlapping trade channels and clases ofpurchasers“).
`As shown in the table below, several use-bmed registrations (including the cited marks) and common law marks that include “NOURISH“, or ahighly similar
`vaciation ofthat term, currently coexist for pet food and highly similar or closely related goods. [2] Further, the attached internet printouts referenced in the table show actual
`um in the marketplace of both registered and common lawma.rks that include “NOURISI-I“ or avariation ofthat term for identical, highly similar or closely related goods.
`
`Goods
`
`Owner/C omments
`
`Animal feed.
`nam ely
`livestock
`feed, horse
`feed and pet
`food, non-
`medicated
`additives {or
`animal feed
`Nmr-
`animal Feed
`uiechcated
`additives,
`animal feed,
`narn ely,
`livestock
`feed, hone
`Feed, pet
`foo d
`Foodstuffs
`for animals
`
`North American Nutrition
`Companies, In c.
`
`Ncnli Arncrinan Nutnti on
`Comparu es, In E4
`
`The Iams Company
`
`Pet food
`
`Del Monte Corporation
`
`Pet food and
`
`Del Monte Corporation
`
`use
`
`at
`
`treat:
`
`http.//wwhw.de[lmo:te.comfbra}r‘icli:/
`(screen I ot a we page mm: s )
`
`AP11 N°/ Mark
`Reg. No.
`3496487 NOURISI-I
`
`34
`
`(stylized)
`
`3058217 NOURISH
`EVERY
`HEARTBEAT.
`LOVE EVERY
`BITE
`STIR UP A
`NOURISHING
`MEAL
`Common NOURISHING
`
`3245407
`
`Law
`
`FAMHIIESI
`ENRICHING
`LIVES. EVERY
`DAY.
`Common ORIJEN
`Law
`NOURISH AS
`NATURE
`INTENDED and
`Desi
`Common NOURISH
`
`YOUR PET
`Law
`INSIDE & OUT.
`Common HOLISTIC
`
`Law
`
`SELECT _
`&
`ammo.
`NOURISI-I
`PUPPY FOOD
`Comm on NOURISH
`Law
`YOUR WHOLE
`DOG FROM
`HEAD T0 PAW
`Common NOURISH
`Law
`yoUR HAPPY,
`LONG LIFE
`TOGETHER.
`Common NATURAL
`
`Pet food
`
`Pet food,
`
`treat: and
`“PP ‘“
`Pet Food
`
`D 05 food
`
`Ft! food
`
`Pet food
`
`Champion Petfoods Ltd. Located in
`Canada.
`but
`sales
`in
`the US.:
`http:I/www.katLndogz.netJ:at_food.htm
`(copy ofwebpage attached)
`In use at hup:/lwww.nuhemp.:omI
`
`(copy of webpage attached)
`I.n usr: at
`
`I
`
`:fllp:/t/WWV17.l(g°:|.ll5iI|t.¢01;l1£p-l"7iU-
`015.19-IE EC - ifgfl-8)!!! - TEE ‘
`11-
`»f
`d.
`f
`:.::',;:.:::::..:;’
`
`
`
`In use at www.ultrah olisticcom
`(screen sh or of webpage attached)
`
`In us: at
`htt_p:/Iwww.hil1spec.com/productslscience
`~diet html (copy of webpage attached)
`In use It
`C0 0 “'5 CBHIE I
`http:/fw[s‘vw.:)iatura1noux1;‘sl:im ent.netlProducts.htm
`In use at
`
`NOURISHMENT
`Law
`Common NOURISH.
`
`Pet
`
`EDUCATE
`Law
`WE
`Common NOURISH
`Law
`
`Common
`Law
`
`TI-[E
`NOURISHING
`HAND
`
`supplements
`Fish
`mpplcment
`
`Pet mats‘
`and supplies
`
`htrzp /I;ww.i:‘rto}g|e$crs.coml (copy
`0 we
`age
`an e
`Seachern Laboratorier, Inc. sold at:
`http.//WWW.marincdepotcom/px_VicwItem.arpx7
`categ -:fieachem_Nourish_Spe cialry_Add.ia've:_Supp1em ents_for_Fish&v encloi=Se aehem&.rdProduct=SC4513&IdCategory=FWAD5A.FS&tab=0
`sizrenn allot of‘ web )
`- r: smashed
`In use at
`ht:p:Ilwww.dienourishinghandcom/store/7
`c=l5 (copy of webpage attached)
`
`Given the fmqucnt use and registration ofNOUR.ISH, and its varimiona, for the same, highly similar and closely related goods, the cited marks must be considered
`commercially weak in addition to conceptually weak. As such, the cited marks are entitled to avery narrow scope ofprotection.
`(2)
`Caznpanmn ofthe Marks.
`Comparison ofthe marks must focus on the marks in their entireties. See, e.g., Spice Islands Inc. V. Frank Tea & Spice Co., 505 F.2d 1293, 184 U.S.P.Q. 35
`(C.C.P.A. 1974); In re Electrolyte Labs, Inc., 16 U.S.P.Q.2d1239, 1240 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“No element ofamark is ignored simply because it is less dominant, or would not
`have trademark significance ifused alone").
`The Mark is SIMPLY NOURISH, while the marks in the cited registmtions are NOURISH and NOURISH (stylized), both owned by Nort.h American Nutrition
`Companies, Inc. The cited marks are not identical in sight, sound or meaning to the Mark. Further. the addition of the tem SIMPLY distinguidies the Mark visually and
`
`file://\\ticrs—ais-01\ticrseXport\HtmlToTifi'Input\RFR000 120 1 l_0 l_26_14_O0_20_WS 194...
`
`1/26/201 1
`
`

`
`Request for Reconsideration afier Final Action
`
`Page 7 of 8
`
`arrally from the cited marks and creates adifferent commercial impression, particularly with SIMPLY being the first term ofthe Mark. The first part ofamark tends
`
`to be where consumers focus their attention. See, e.g., Presto Prods. Inc. v. Nice-Pak Prods. Inc. 9 U.S.P.Q.2d1895, 1897 (‘I‘.'I'.A.B. 1988) (the first pat ofamark is “a
`matter of some importance since it is oflen the first part ofamark which is most likely to be impressed upon the mind ofapurchaser and remembered”).
`In addition to the
`difference created by the term SIMPLY, the Mark also diflers in appearance andmeaning from the cited NOURISH (stylized) mark, which has replaced the “0“ in the mark
`with a heart.
`'l'he Mark does not have this or my similar design element. Thus, the NOURISH (stylized) mark is visually difl'erent from the Mark and creates a commercial
`impression ofnourishing with love, or with cardiac health benefits, whereas the Malc creates no such impression. Instead in connection with pet food and treats, the Mark
`creates the impression ofsustenance that is simple and uncomplicated.
`While Applicant acknowledges that the Mark and the cited marks share the common (but weak) term “Nourish“, this similarity does not result automatically in a
`fintiitng that the marks in their entireties are sufliciently similar to find confusion likely, especially in the context ofa crowded field and weak marks. Palm Bay Intports Inc.,
`73 U.S.P.Q.2d at 1694 (third party use ofsimilar marks conditions or educates consumers to distinguish between different marks on the bases ofminimal differences).
`CONCLUSION
`
`Basal on the weak nature ofthe cited marks and the difierenees between the Mark and the cited marks, the Applicant respectfillly submits that confusion between the
`Mark and the cited marks is simply not likely. The Applicant, therefore respectfully requests that the refiisal nfthe registration be withdrawn and the application for the Mark
`be passed to publication. Should any questions remain with respect to the above, please contact James L. Vana.
`DATED: January 24, 2011.
`
`[l 1 Applicant‘: statements regarding the weakness ofthc prior registeredmarkx do not constitute collateral attack: on the validity ofthose rcgimationt.
`[2] Copies of the noted registrations are attached
`
`EVIDENCE
`Evidence in the nature of Evidence in the form of U.S. Registrations, Brand Use and Descriptive Use has been attached.
`Orlglnal PDF‘ file:
`http://tgate/PDF/RFR/2011/01/24/20110124191006011858-77866424-003_001/evi_198221004-144014635_._SimplyNourish_Evidcnce.pdf
`Converted PDF t1le(s) (20 pages)
`Evidence-1
`Evidence-2
`Evidence-3
`Evidence-4
`Evidence-5
`Evidence-6
`Evidence-7
`Evidence-8
`Evidence-9
`Evidence-10
`Evidence-ll
`Ev‘
`e-12
`Evidence-13
`Evidence-14
`Evidence-1 5
`Evidence-16
`E.vidence«l 7
`Evidence-18
`Evidence—1 9
`Evidence-20
`Original PDF file:
`http://tgate/PDF/RFR/2011/01/24/20110l2419100601l858 -77866424-003_002/evi_19822 1004-1440146?)5_._SimplyNourish_DescriptiveUse.pdf
`Converted PDF flle(s) (33 pages)
`Evidence-1
`Evidence-2
`Evidence-3
`Evidence—4
`Evidence-5
`Evidence-6
`Evidence-7
`Evidence-8
`Evidence-9
`Evidence-10
`Evidence-1 1
`Evidence-12
`Evidence-13
`Evidence-14
`Evidence-15
`Evidence-16
`Evidence-17
`Evidence-18
`Evidence-19
`Evidence-20
`Evidence-21
`Evidence-Z2
`Evidence—23
`Evidence-24
`Eyidence-25
`Evidence-26
`Evidence-27
`Evidence-28
`Evidence-29
`Evidence-30
`Evidence—3l
`
`file ://\\ti_crs-ais-O 1\ticrsexport\Htm1ToTifflnput\RFROO0 1201 l_O 1_26__14_OO_20_WS 194...
`
`1/26/20] 1
`
`

`
`Request for Reconsideration afier Final Action
`
`Page 8 of 8
`
`Evidence-32
`Evidence-3 3
`Original PDF Illa:
`http://tgate/PDF/RFR/2011/01/24/20110124191006011858-77866424-003_003/evi_198221004-144014635_._SimplyNourish_DescriptiveUse2.pdf
`Converted PDF tl1e(s) (14 pages)
`Evidence-1
`Evidence-2
`Evidence-3
`Evidence-4
`Evidence-5
`Evidence-6
`Evidence-7
`Evidence-8
`Evidence-2
`Evidence-10
`
`eE
`
`vidence-12
`Evidence-13
`Evidence-14
`
`SIGNATURE(S)
`Request for Reconsideration Signature
`Signature: /James L. Vanal Dae: 01/24/2011
`Signatory's Name: James L. Vana
`Signatory's Position: Attorney ofrecord, Washington State bar member
`
`The signatory has coufimied that he/she is an attorney who is amember in good standing of the bar of the highest court ot'aU.S. state, which includes the District of
`Columbia, Puerto Rico, and otherfederal territories and possessions; and he/she is currently the qaplicanfls attorney or an associate thereofi and to the best ofhis/her
`knowledge, if prior to his/her appointment mother U.S. attorney or a Canadian anomey/agent not currently associated with his/her company/firm previously represented the
`wplicant in this matter. (1) the applicant has filed or is concurrently filing a signed revocation of or substitute power of attoniey with the USPTO; (2) the USPTO has granted
`the request ofthe prior representative to withdraw; (3) the applicant has filed a power of attorney appointing him/her in this matter, or (4) the applicant's appointed U.S. .
`atomey or Canadian attomey/agent has filed apower of atomey appointing him/her as an associate attorney in this matter.
`
`'11xe wplieant is not filing aNotice ofAppeal in conjunction with this Request for Reconsideration.
`
`Serial Number: 77866424
`Intemet Tmtsrnission Date: Mon Jan 24 1