From: Dantzler, Lauren
`
`
`
`Sent: 5/2/2019 5:06:28 PM
`
`
`
`To: TTAB EFiling
`
`
`
`CC:
`
`
`
`Subject: U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 87684401 - R.C. - N/A - EXAMINER BRIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`*************************************************
`
`Attachment Information:
`
`Count: 6
`
`Files: aromatherapy1.jpg, aromatherapy2.jpg, aromatherapy3.jpg, aromatherapy4.jpg,
`aromatherapy5.jpg, 87684401.doc
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
`
`
`U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 87684401
`
`
`
`MARK: R.C.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`*87684401*
`
`CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS:
` YOUNG LIVING ESSENTIAL OILS LC
`
`
`
`
`
`GENERAL TRADEMARK INFORMATION:
`
` 3125 EXECUTIVE PARKWAY
`
`
`
`http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/index.jsp
`
` LEHI, UT 84043
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TTAB INFORMATION:
`
`http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/process/appeal/index.js
`p
`
`APPLICANT: Young Living Essential Oils, LC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO:
`
` N/A
`
`CORRESPONDENT E-MAIL ADDRESS:
`
` ipdocket@youngliving.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXAMINING ATTORNEY’S APPEAL BRIEF
`
`Applicant, Young Living Essential Oils, LC, has appealed the final refusal to register the proposed
`
`mark R.C. for goods listed as “Essential oils for aromatherapy use,” in International Class 003, on the
`
`ground that the applied-for mark so resembles the mark in U.S. Registration No. 4733941 so as to create
`
`a likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).
`
`
`
`

`

`FACTS
`
`I.
`
`
`On November 14, 2017, applicant filed an application under Trademark Section 1(a), 15 U.S.C.
`
`§1051(a), to register the proposed standard character mark R.C. for the goods “essential oils for
`
`aromatherapy use” in International Class 003 on the Principal Register. On March 3, 2018, the Examining
`
`Attorney refused registration of applicant’s mark under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C.
`
`§1052(d), on the ground that the applied-for mark was confusingly similar to the registered mark RC
`
`COSMETICS (U.S. Registration No. 4733941) for the goods listed as “cosmetics and cosmetic
`
`preparations; cosmetics and make-up.” Applicant responded to the initial refusal on August 2, 2018, by
`
`presenting arguments in favor of registration. A final action was issued on September 4, 2018, for the
`
`Section 2(d) refusal. Applicant subsequently filed an appeal brief on March 5, 2019.
`
`
`
`
`
`II.
`
`ISSUE ON APPEAL
`
`The sole issue on appeal is whether applicant’s use of the mark R.C. for “essential oils for
`
`aromatherapy use,” creates a likelihood of confusion with the registered mark RC COSMETICS for
`
`“cosmetics and cosmetic preparations; cosmetics and make-up.”
`
`
`
`
`
`III.
`
`OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`
`As evidence against the refusal, applicant provided screen shots or printouts of webpages that
`
`do not specify the date it was downloaded or accessed and the complete URL. To properly introduce
`
`Internet evidence into the record, an applicant must provide (1) an image file or printout of the
`
`downloaded or accessed, (2) the date the evidence was downloaded or accessed, and (3) the complete
`
`URL address of the webpage. See In re I-Coat Co., LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1730, 1733 (TTAB 2018); TBMP
`
`§1208.03; see TMEP §710.01(b).
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IV.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`APPLICANT’S AND REGISTRANT’S MARKS ARE CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR AND THE GOODS ARE CLOSELY
`RELATED SUCH THAT THERE EXISTS A LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION UNDER SECTION 2(D) OF THE
`TRADEMARK ACT.
`
`
`
`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). Only those factors
`
`that are “relevant and of record” need be considered. M2 Software, Inc. v. M2 Commc’ns, Inc., 450 F.3d
`
`1378, 1382, 78 USPQ2d 1944, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Shen Mfg. Co. v. Ritz Hotel Ltd., 393 F.3d
`
`1238, 1241, 73 USPQ2d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2004)); see In re Inn at St. John’s, LLC, 126 USPQ2d
`
`1742, 1744 (TTAB 2018).
`
`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.
`
`

`

`The overriding concern is not only to prevent buyer confusion as to the source of the goods
`
`and/or services, 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).
`
`
`
`
`
`A. THE MARKS ARE CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR
`
`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)); TMEP §1207.01(b).
`
`Here, the proposed mark R.C., in standard character format, is extremely similar to the
`
`registered mark RC COSMETICS in stylized font and design in appearance, sound, connotation and
`
`commercial impression because applicant’s mark R.C. is highly similar, if not identical to the dominant
`
`element in registrant’s mark. Although marks are compared in their entireties, one feature of a mark
`
`may be more significant or dominant in creating a commercial impression. See In re Detroit Athletic Co.,
`
`903 F.3d 1297, 1305, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1050 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing In re Dixie Rests., 105 F.3d 1405,
`
`1407, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533-34 (Fed. Cir. 1997)); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii). Greater weight is often
`
`

`

`given to this dominant feature when determining whether marks are confusingly similar. See In re
`
`Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d at 1305, 128 USPQ2d at 1050 (citing In re Dixie Rests., 105 F.3d at 1407, 41
`
`USPQ2d at 1533-34). In the case at hand, applicant’s mark, R.C., is highly similar to the dominant feature
`
`of the registered mark, which incorporates a design and the additional wording, “COSMETICS” which is
`
`generic for the applicant’s goods and incapable of serving as a source identifier. In re Hughes Furniture
`
`Indus., Inc., 114 USPQ2d 1134, 1138 (TTAB 2015). “RC” is the dominant element because matter that is
`
`descriptive of or generic for a party’s goods and/or services is typically less significant or less dominant
`
`in relation to other wording in a mark. See Anheuser-Busch, LLC v. Innvopak Sys. Pty Ltd., 115 USPQ2d
`
`1816, 1824-25 (TTAB 2015) (citing In re Chatam Int’l Inc., 380 F.3d 1340, 1342-43, 71 USPQ2d 1944,
`
`1946 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). In addition, the word portion is normally accorded greater weight because it is
`
`likely to make a greater impression upon purchasers, be remembered by them, and be used by them to
`
`refer to or request the goods. In re Aquitaine Wine USA, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1181, 1184 (TTAB 2018)
`
`(citing In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); TMEP
`
`§1207.01(c)(ii). Accordingly, “RC” is the dominant element in the registered mark, and applicant’s
`
`arguments relying on the inclusion of “COSMETICS” and a design to distinguish the marks are
`
`unpersuasive. Rather, the use of the letters RC in both marks creates highly similar commercial
`
`impressions and therefore, the marks are confusingly similar.
`
`Although applicant’s mark does not contain the entirety of the registered mark, applicant’s mark
`
`is likely to appear to prospective purchasers as a shortened form of registrant’s mark. See In re Mighty
`
`Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 1348, 94 USPQ2d 1257, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting United States Shoe Corp.,
`
`229 USPQ 707, 709 (TTAB 1985)). Thus, merely omitting some of the wording from a registered mark
`
`may not overcome a likelihood of confusion. See In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 94 USPQ2d 1257;
`
`In re Optica Int’l, 196 USPQ 775, 778 (TTAB 1977); TMEP §1207.01(b)(ii)-(iii). In this case, applicant’s
`
`mark does not create a distinct commercial impression from the registered mark because it contains
`
`

`

`some of the wording in the registered mark and does not add any wording that would distinguish it from
`
`that mark.
`
`Indeed, where registrant’s merely incorporates the generic term for its goods, this additional
`
`wording is insufficient to distinguish the marks because generic terms have no source identifying
`
`significance. See In re Hughes Furniture Indus., Inc., 114 USPQ2d at 1138; See, e.g., In re Dixie Rests., Inc.,
`
`41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533-34 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (affirming TTAB’s finding that "DELTA," not the disclaimed
`
`generic term "CAFE," is the dominant portion of the mark THE DELTA CAFE). Given the limited
`
`significance COSMETICS has in creating the commercial impression of the marks, applicant’s arguments
`
`that the marks differ in appearance and sound are unpersuasive. 4 TTABVUE 5.
`
`Applicant has also argued that “the marks are distinct phonetically as well.” 4 TTABVUE 6. This
`
`also is unpersuasive because there is no correct way to pronounce a trademark. Applicant contents that
`
`“[A]pplicant’s mark is only two syllables long, and pronounced “är-sē” and the cited mark is five syllables
`
`long and pronounced “är-sē-käz-mediks.” 4 TTABVUE 6. As set out above, even if the registered mark
`
`has more syllables due to the inclusion of the generic wording “COSMETICS,” such wording is not source
`
`identifying, and therefore the impact it has on the sound of the mark would have minimal effect on
`
`distinguishing them. Indeed, applicant’s arguments concede that the “R.C.” and “RC” portions of the
`
`respective marks have identical sounds. Such similarity in sound alone may be sufficient to support a
`
`finding that the marks are confusingly similar. In re White Swan Ltd., 8 USPQ2d 1534, 1535 (TTAB 1988);
`
`see In re 1st USA Realty Prof’ls, Inc., 84 USPQ2d 1581, 1586 (TTAB 2007); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iv).
`
`Therefore, slight differences in syllables is not enough to overcome a likelihood of confusion. Here, the
`
`marks are confusingly similar because they share the same letters “RC” which is the dominant feature of
`
`the marks and thus creates the same overall commercial impression.
`
`Therefore, the marks are confusingly similar for Section 2(d) purposes.
`
`

`

`
`
`Applicant contends that “[c]onsumers will understand “RC” in Registrant’s mark to mean “Royal
`
`Care” because “RC” is used consistently as an abbreviation on Registrant’s website, social media, and
`
`advertising in close proximity to its full meaning, “Royal Care.” 4 TTABVUE 4. However, marks are
`
`compared as they appear in the drawing of the application and in the registration; in ex parte
`
`examination, the USPTO does not consider how an applicant and registrant actually use their marks in
`
`the marketplace. In re Aquitaine Wine USA, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1181, 1186 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re
`
`i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1324, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1749 (Fed. Cir. 2017)). Therefore, applicant’s
`
`reliance on The Christian Broadcasting Network, Inc. v. ABS-CBN International, 84 U.S.P.Q.2d 1560 (TTAB
`
`2017), an inter partes proceeding is misplaced.
`
`Further, there is no basis to assert that the acronyms, which are identical in sound, and
`
`essentially identical in appearance, would have different meanings. A party’s intent as to how a mark
`
`would be perceived is not controlling. See Viterra, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1912 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Interlego AG
`
`v. Abrams/Gentile Entm't Inc., 63 USPQ2d 1862, 1863 (TTAB 2002) (finding similarity between LEGO and
`
`MEGO, despite the applicant's contention that consumers would pronounce MEGO as "me go").
`
`Therefore, applicant’s assertions of multiple meanings, “Respiratory Care”, “Respiratory Control”, or
`
`“Really Cool” are also irrelevant. 4 TTABVUE 4. Indeed, applicant even admits that “[A]pplicant’s “R.C.” is
`
`an arbitrary term which is open to the imagination and has no set meaning.” Id. Indeed, it is not out of
`
`the realm of possibilities that consumers could associate the applicant “RC” with the registrant’s “Royal
`
`Care”. Therefore, the applicant’s assertion that the marks are distinguished because they differ in
`
`meaning is unpersuasive and any minor differences are outweighed by the common use of the letters
`
`“RC” in both marks.
`
`Accordingly, applicant’s mark and the cited mark convey confusingly similar commercial
`
`impressions due to the shared term “RC”.
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`B. THE GOODS ARE HIGHLY RELATED AND THE TRADE CHANNELS FOR THE GOODS ARE THE
`SAME
`
`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).
`
`Goods may also be related where evidence shows that the goods at issue have complementary uses,
`
`and thus are often used together or otherwise purchased by the same purchasers for the same or
`
`related purposes. See Polo Fashions, Inc. v. La Loren, Inc., 224 USPQ 309, 511 (TTAB 1984) (holding bath
`
`sponges and personal products, such as bath oil, soap, and body lotion, to be related because they are
`
`complementary goods that are likely to be purchased and used together by the same purchasers). In this
`
`case, applicant’s proposed goods are “essential oils for aromatherapy use,” are highly related to the
`
`goods of registrant, “cosmetics and cosmetic preparations; cosmetics and make-up.” The evidence of
`
`record demonstrates that essential oils for aromatherapy use and cosmetics are related because they
`
`are sold by the same companies under the same mark through the same trade channels, and because
`
`they are used together and encountered together by consumers in the marketplace.
`
`Specifically, the evidence of record from Doterra, Aura Cacia, Now Foods, PipingRock, Aveda,
`
`Nuskin, Orglamix, and Shea Moisture, all demonstrate that third parties commonly manufacture both
`
`essential oils for aromatherapy use and cosmetics and that these products are sold under the same
`
`

`

`trademark, through the same trade channels and to the same consumers. (See March 3, 2018 Office
`
`Action, TSDR pgs. 9-38 and September 4, 2018, Office Action, TSDR pgs. 5-26.) Therefore, the evidence of
`
`record establishes that the goods are related for purposes of a likelihood of confusion. See, e.g., In re
`
`Davey Prods. Pty Ltd., 92 USPQ2d 1198, 1202-04 (TTAB 2009); In re Toshiba Med. Sys. Corp., 91 USPQ2d
`
`1266, 1268-69, 1271-72 (TTAB 2009).
`
`In addition, contrary to applicant’s arguments that “[E]ssential oils used for aromatherapy are
`
`distinctly different products from cosmetics,” on the grounds that applicant’s goods are not topical
`
`treatments compared to cosmetics which are applied to the skin, the record demonstrates that essential
`
`oils for aromatherapy use and cosmetics are used together and encountered together by consumers in
`
`the marketplace. 4 TTABVUE 6. In this case, applicant’s essential oils for aromatherapy have similar
`
`purposes to the cosmetics in the cited registration. The cosmetic industry is a very broad field that
`
`includes items that are used to improve beauty, such as make up, and items used to clean the body,
`
`such as soaps and body washes. Further, “cosmetics” are defined as “substances intended to be applied
`
`to the human body for cleansing, beautifying, promoting attractiveness, or altering the appearance
`
`without affecting the body's structure or functions. Included in this definition are skin creams, lotions,
`
`perfumes, lipsticks, fingernail polishes, eye and facial makeup preparations, permanent waves, hair
`
`colors, toothpastes, and deodorants, as well as any material intended for use as a component of a
`
`cosmetic product.” (See March 3, 2018 Office Action, TSDR pg. 5.) In addition, “aromatherapy” is defined
`
`as the inhalation or bodily application (as by massage) of fragrant essential oils (as from flowers and
`
`fruits) for therapeutic purposes.1
`
`
`1The trademark examining attorney requests that the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board take judicial notice of the
`attached evidence from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/aromatherapy, defining the term
`“aromatherapy”. TBMP §1208.04; see also Fed. R. Evid. 201; 37 C.F.R. §2.122(a). The Trademark Trial and Appeal
`Board may take judicial notice of dictionary definitions that (1) are available in a printed format, (2) are the
`electronic equivalent of a print reference work, or (3) have regular fixed editions. See In re Jimmy Moore LLC, 119
`USPQ2d 1764, 1768 (TTAB 2016) (taking judicial notice of definitions from Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary at
`
`

`

`Therefore, both goods are used by applying to skin and would be used together, as shown by
`
`the evidence of record. (See September 4, 2018, Office Action, TSDR pgs. 7-8, 27-42.)
`
`For instance, essential oils are routinely used in connection with a beauty routine, alone as a
`
`fragrance, and used in the creation of many cosmetics and have increased in popularity due to their
`
`anti-inflammatory, antibacterial and antiviral properties. (See September 4, 2018, Office Action, TSDR
`
`pgs. 27-38.) Moreover, the applicant’s website further establishes the relatedness of essential oils and
`
`cosmetics. The applicant Young Living manufactures both essential oils and cosmetics and also uses
`
`essential oils in the creation of those cosmetics. (See September 4, 2018, Office Action, TSDR pgs. 39-42.)
`
`Moreover, the applicant Young Living also markets those goods under the same “YOUNG LIVING” brand.
`
`(See Id.) Therefore, it is clear that essential oils for aromatherapy and cosmetics and make-up are highly
`
`related.
`
`
`
`
`
`i. Internet evidence is sufficient to prove relatedness of goods.
`
`Contrary to applicant’s assertions, the internet evidence of record is sufficient to establish that
`
`the goods are related. Applicant’s reliance on Inter Ikea Sys. B.V. v. Akea, LLC, 110 USPQ2d 1734 (TTAB
`
`2014, to argue that the internet evidence of record has unpersuasive and with little probative value is
`
`misplaced. 4 TTABVUE 7. The Board held that without evidence that established overlap in trade
`
`channels, it is unreasonable to conclude that goods and/or services are related merely because they are
`
`sold on the Internet. See Inter IKEA Systems B.V., 110 U.S.P.Q.2d at 1743. Moreover, where the parties’
`
`goods and services are different, without evidence that the two parties’ goods travel through the same
`
`
`www.merriam-webster.com); In re Inn at St. John’s, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1742, 1747 n.15 (TTAB 2018); (taking judicial
`notice of definition from Dictionary.com because it was from The Random House Unabridged Dictionary); In re Red
`Bull GmbH, 78 USPQ2d 1375, 1378 (TTAB 2006) (taking judicial notice of definition from Encarta Dictionary
`because it was readily available in specifically denoted editions via the Internet and CD-ROM); TBMP §1208.04;
`TMEP §710.01(c); see also Fed. R. Evid. 201; 37 C.F.R. §2.122(a).
`
`

`

`channels of trade, the Board could not conclude that the goods travelled through the same trade
`
`channels based on the theory that all goods sold on the internet travel through the same trade channel.
`
`Id. In contrast, the evidence attached to the Office Actions dated March 3, 2018, and September 4,
`
`2018, actually shows third party businesses that manufacture cosmetics and essential oils for
`
`aromatherapy and market those goods under the same mark. None of the cited evidence in Office
`
`Actions dated March 3, 2018, and September 4, 2018, show “big box” companies that “sell almost every
`
`conceivable product online” such as Ikea and Amazon, as referenced by the Applicant. 4 TTABVUE 7.
`
`Furthermore, material obtained from the Internet is generally accepted as competent evidence in
`
`trademark examination. See In re Jonathan Drew Inc., 97 USPQ2d 1640, 1641-42 (TTAB 2011); In re
`
`Davey Prods. Pty Ltd., 92 USPQ2d 1198, 1202-03 (TTAB 2009); In re Leonhardt, 109 USPQ2d 2091, 2098
`
`(TTAB 2008); TBMP §1208.03; TMEP §710.01(b). Therefore, the applicant’s argument that the Examining
`
`Attorney’s evidence fails to establish the relevant goods are related is unpersuasive.
`
`
`
`
`
`ii. The manner in which goods are marketed does not distinguish the goods.
`
`Lastly, applicant contends that “[T]he relevant goods are marketed in a manner that renders the
`
`chance of confusion to be extremely remote,” asserting that registrant’s goods are marketed as being
`
`for affecting a person’s appearance, while the applied-for goods are marketed as being for treating
`
`health ailments. 4 TTABVUE 8. Although applicant presents evidence of its marketing showing the goods
`
`being promoted as having health benefits, the other evidence of record overwhelmingly establishes that
`
`the respective goods are sold by the same companies, to the same consumers, and through the same
`
`trade channels. As such, applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
`
`
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`
`
`

`

`The record shows that the marks are highly similar and the wording “RC” in the applicant’s and
`
`registrant’s marks is the dominant feature of the marks. Additionally, the record shows that the
`
`identified goods are extremely related, because essential oils for aromatherapy use and cosmetics are
`
`commonly offered by a single source and travel in the same channels of trade. Thus, in light of the high
`
`similarity of the marks, consumers encountering applicant's and registrant’s mark in the marketplace are
`
`likely to mistakenly believe that the goods emanate from a common source, namely, the registrant. For
`
`the foregoing reasons, the refusal to registration under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act should be
`
`affirmed.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Lauren Dantzler/
`
`Examining Attorney
`
`Law Office 122
`
`(571) 272-7348
`
`Lauren.dantzler@uspto.gov
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`John Lincoski
`
`Managing Attorney
`
`Law Office 122
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`HZEISZCMAM 5122019
`-,-.l mun I -| m alum wtn-H Illll-l'v'
`.m l
`
`SINCE 1828
`aromatherapy
`X Q
`
`DlCTlONkR‘F THESAURUS
`
`LOCAL 'rv ANYWHERE
`
`WATCH
`
`LIVE
`
`,
`..
`12:35:?!
`
`aromatherapy M
`aroma-therapy l
`\e:ré»ma-'ther-a-pé0\
`Definition of aromatherapy
`:lnhalatlon or bodlly appllcation (as by massage) of fragrant essential oils (as from
`flowers and frultsfiorlherapeutlc purposes
`broadly: the use of aroma to enhance a feeling of well-belng
`
`KEEP THE [IVE TV
`BREAK UP WITH CABLE'
`
`
`
`u
`
`+
`
`$1 Other Words from aromatherapy
`
`WORD OF THE DAV
`
`J, Example Sentences
`
`J; Learn More about aromatherapy
`
`Other Words from aromatherapy
`,
`,
`‘
`u
`‘
`aromatherapeutlc \ztherra prrtlk@\ adjectlve
`aramatherapist \-'ther-a-pist°\ noun
`
`https f/wwmemanwehslm emdlmanarylaramllfleupy
`
`
`
`
`
` prodigiouso
`
`Causlng amazement or wonder
`
`Get Word of the Da dail
`y
`
`ch'erna' address
`
`y
`
`small]
`
`What's the
`Difference
`HCIH'CCII :I 'Hmfl'
`and a 'Ship'?
`
`
`
`

`

`HZDSATAM SQFZCHQ
`
`ii
`I.Al‘.‘ll‘r
`
`lli
`-|lli
`ikIII-‘ii‘
`
`
`
`
`
`SINCE 1828
`aromatherapy
`
`
`
`
`DiCTif,
`‘lNl'iF
`
`
`Examples of aromatherapy in a Sentence
`Apr | 20'i 9 Words ijhe Day QM
`Recent Examples on the Web
`[I One of the easiest {and most pleasant) ways to achieve these benefits is through
`aromatherapy.
`— Maria Cassana,Alfure, "11 afthe Best Essential Oil Diffusers to Make Vour Horne Smell
`
`Whichlsa synanymos
`
`A. F'°P"'°U5’
`
`>11!
`
`II Its health benefits range from aromatherapy to sanitizing cuts,
`— Dean Fosditk, Ihe Seattle Times: "Lave ncler: The 'Swrss Army knife' of fragrant herbs" 26 Mar.
`2019
`
`These example sentences are selecled autarnatlcaily {ram variaus onilne news sourtes to refleci current usage of
`the word 'aramalhetapy.‘ Views expressed In the example; do not represent the opinion of Merriamrwehster or Its
`editors. Send usfeedllatk
`
`See More
`
`First Known Use of aromatherapy
`1949, in the meaning defined above
`
`History and Etymology for aromatherapy
`French aramathérapie, from Latin aroma + French therapr'e therapy
`
`Tesi your knowledge , and
`mayae learn something
`along the way,
`MK; THE Qu'z »
`
`Test Your Knowledge , and
`learn some interesting
`things along the way
`IAKE THE QUIZ »
`
`TR E N DING NOW
`
`1 snitty
`Barr discusses Mueller‘s lettu-
`2 abjure
`Barr testifies in Senate
`3 surveillance
`Comey comments on Barr‘s ..
`SEE ALL 1)
`
`Learn More about aromatherapy
`mp5 fNMwmei'rlfiFlWebslel cmdiniunawlawmafleiavy
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`HZD‘JZDTAM SQFZCHQ
`I .1 Hi
`w )i'ii
`lliiiA-i'
`'i'ri
`nauiu
`iamm‘
`.ii.
`i
`
`SINCE 1828
`aromatherapy
`
`
`DiCTiCiNkR"! THESAURUS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`aromatherapy 1101111
`
`0 E
`
`nglish Language Learners Definition of aromatherapy
`:the use of natural oils that have a pleasant smell to make a person feel better
`especially by rubbing the oils into the Sl-(II'I
`
`See the full definition for aromatherapy in the English Language Learners Dictionary
`
`aromatherapy 1101111
`aro-ma-tner-a-py i
`\e—ré-me-‘ther-a-péOi
`plural aromatherapies
`
`Medical Definition of aromatherapy
`: inhalation or bodily application (as by massage) of fragrant essential oils (as from
`flowers and frUitsifortherapeutic purposes
`llAromatherapy relies on very concentrated “essential" oils from the flowers. ieaves,
`bark, branches, rind or roots of plants with purported healing properties.
`—]ane E. Brody, The New York Times, 26 Dec, 2000
`broadly: the use of aroma to enhance a feeling of wellebeing
`
`Other Words from aromatherapy
`aromarhavanollrir \ +1“, .1 ‘mm vilzm\ nr‘inrri‘un
`mp5 fNMwmemarlwebStei cmdiauunarwanamaflerapy
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`TH ESAU RUS
`
`:..wi i.
`
`It .l
`
`I 1 :[IQZ43AM 522019
`IIiE'ihlll-‘ii‘ i- i‘i
`lll
`im-
`
`Books
`
`Featured Product
`
`The Merriam-Webster Dictionary (Mass-market paperback)
`
`An all new edition of the bestselling dictionary covering
`core vocabulary of everyday life.
`
`Hot Mess - Merriam-Webster Ask the
`Vou‘re probably lamiliar with lhe helm no: mass But
`an yuu knew how old hm mess really iSVMm-elmlgg
`
`
`Product Information
`
`IRENDINC NOW
`
`1 snittyBarr discusses Mueller‘s Iett.
`2 abjure
`Barr testifies in Senate
`3 surveillance
`Conley comments on Barr‘s
`SEE A“. )
`
`Our book store features our bestselling Merriaerebster‘s Coilegiate® Dictionary;
`the classic Webster‘s Third New international Dictionary, Unabridged: The Official
`SCRABBLE® Players Dictionary, and much more» Select a category‘
`
`
`
`
`
`G G
`
`et the Googie
`Pixel 3 XL.
`si .'r
`
`
`
`Diclionaries
`
`Thesauruses
`
`Learner's Diclionat'ies
`
`Bilingual Dicliuttaries
`
`Foreign Language Learning
`
`Gallle Books
`
`Mp5 iiwww merliamebstei cumisrlap-dimmnaries
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`HZ11 DSAM 5/2/2019
`
`
` .ii.inn-n- i n-ii i
`
`
`
`SINCE 1828
`
` THESAURUS DlCTlONkR‘F
`
`
`Illifiilfif
`
`About Us
`
`For more than 150 years, in print and now online, MerriarnWebster has been
`America's leading and most-trusted provider or language information.
`
`Each month, our Web sites offer guidance to more than 40 million Visitors. In
`print, our publications include Merriaerebster‘s Collegiate Dictionary (among
`the bestselling books in American history) and newly published dictionaries for
`English-language learners
`
`All Merriam-Webster products and serwces are backed by the largest team of
`protessmnal dictionary editors and writers in America. and one ofthe largest in
`the world.
`
`
`
`AxL ill F‘llll‘l‘
`Douay
`Doozy 7 MerriamWebsier Ask in
`Merriam-Webster Associaie EOiYoIi Erniiy Brewster
`expounas upon me origin: 0! me worn 'aoozy.‘ Mm-
`Jim
`
`TRENDING Now
`
`1 snitty
`Barr discusses Mueller‘s Iett.”
`2 abjure
`Barr testifies in Senate
`3 surveillance
`Conley comments on Barr‘s
`
`Thanks for Joining us.
`
`I‘mlerriainV'debster FAQ
`Advertising lnlo
`
`whim-lg rm Insigl mum. my.
`
`hflps [MM/wmernam-wabsIer :m‘nfabulfl-us
`
`
`
`