To:
`
`Subject:
`
`Sent:
`
`Sent As:
`
`Attachments:
`
`Share Skincare Inc. (pctrademarks@perkinscoie.com)
`
`U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88155341 - SOLÜTION - 130432-4002
`
`December 03, 2020 01:52:19 PM
`
`ecom120@uspto.gov
`
`Attachment - 1
`Attachment - 2
`Attachment - 3
`Attachment - 4
`Attachment - 5
`Attachment - 6
`Attachment - 7
`Attachment - 8
`Attachment - 9
`Attachment - 10
`Attachment - 11
`Attachment - 12
`Attachment - 13
`Attachment - 14
`Attachment - 15
`Attachment - 16
`Attachment - 17
`Attachment - 18
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
`Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
`
`U.S. Application Serial No.
`88155341
`
`Mark:   SOLÜTION
`
`Correspondence Address: 
`Brian R. Coleman
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`3150 PORTER DRIVE
`PALO ALTO, CA 94304
`
`     
`    
`   
`
`Applicant:   Share Skincare
`Inc.
`
`    
`
`Reference/Docket No.
`130432-4002
`
`Correspondence Email
`
`Address:  
`
`pctrademarks@perkinscoie.com
`
`FINAL OFFICE ACTION
`
`The USPTO must receive applicant’s response to this letter within six months of the issue date below or the application will be abandoned. 
`Respond using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) and/or Electronic System for Trademark Trials and Appeals (ESTTA).   A
`link to the appropriate TEAS response form and/or to ESTTA for an appeal appears at the end of this Office action. 
`
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
`

`

`Issue date:  December 03, 2020
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`In a final office action dated October 16, 2019, registration was refused based on a partial refusal under Section 2(d). Applicant filed a request for
`reconsideration dated April 15, 2020, in which applicant argued against the Section 2(d) refusal and requested to divide the services of record. On
`May 10, 2020, the examining attorney issued a suspension letter that continued and maintained the refusal under Section 2(d), advised applicant
`of the proper means to divide the services of record, and suspended the application pending the filing of registration maintenance documents in
`the cited cases for U.S. Registration Nos. 2309323 and 3700519.
`
`Registration maintenance documents were filed in U.S. Registration No. 2309323 on or about August 26, 2020 and in U.S. Registration No.
`3700519 on or about June 29, 2020. As a result, the cited registrations remain valid.  Accordingly, examination is herein resumed and the final
`refusal is re-issued.
`
`After careful consideration of applicant’s evidence and arguments, the trademark examining attorney maintains and now makes FINAL the
`refusal in the summary of issues below.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b); TMEP §714.04.
`
`SUMMARY OF ISSUES MADE FINAL THAT APPLICANT MUST ADDRESS:
`
`PARTIAL REFUSAL: SECTION 2(d) – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
`
`PARTIAL REFUSAL: SECTION 2(e)(1) – MERELY DESCRIPTIVE
`ADVISORY: APPLICATION NOT ELIGIBLE FOR SUPPLEMENTAL REGISTER- AS TO PARTIAL SECTION 2(e)(1) REFUSAL
`
`ADVISORY: FAILURE TO RESPOND TO PARTIAL FINAL OFFICE ACTION
`ADVISORY: PARTIAL REFUSAL OPTIONS
`
`REFUSAL: PARTIAL REFUSAL: SECTION 2(d) – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
`
`ALL PRIOR ARGUMENTS AND EVIDENCE ARE MAINTAINED AND INCORPORATED HEREIN
`
`The partial refusal with respect to registration number 4332362 applies to applicant’s identifications for “Online business risk
`assessment and business consultation services in the field of health and lifestyle; Market analysis and research services, namely,
`collecting, analyzing, processing and providing customer preference and product usage data in the field of health, lifestyle, fitness and
`food products” in International Class 035 only.
`
`The partial refusal with respect to registration numbers 2309323, 3989747, and 3700519 applies to the entirety of applicant’s
`International Class 044 only.
`
`Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 2309323, 3989747,
`3700519, and 4332362.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d);  see TMEP §§1207.01  et seq.   See previously attached registrations .
`
`The applied-for mark is “ SOLÜTION” with design for the relevant- amended services:
`
`International Class 035          
`
`Online business risk assessment and business consultation services in the field of health and lifestyle; Market
`analysis and research services, namely, collecting, analyzing, processing and providing customer preference and
`product usage data in the field of health, lifestyle, fitness and food products
`
`International Class 044          
`
`Providing a website featuring information on maintaining a healthy lifestyle, health and nutrition, and wellness;
`Providing a website featuring nutritional information about food; Personalized health and skin assessment and
`health and skin consultation services based on a consumer's lifestyle, health, microbiome, DNA, and genetic
`information
`
`The registered marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 2309323 and 3989747 are “ SOLUTIONS” in typed and standard characters for “ Medical
`information” in International Class 44. All the foregoing are owned by ConvaTec Inc.
`
`  
`  
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
`                                                          
`

`

`The registered mark in U.S. Registration No. 3700519 is “ SOLUTIONS” in standard characters for “ Geriatric health care management
`services; Health care; Healthcare; Home health care services; Home nursing aid services; Nursing care” in International Class 44. The
`foregoing is owned by United HomeCare Services, Inc.
`
`The registered mark in U.S. Registration No. 4332362 is “ SOLUCION” with design for “ Business management services” in International
`Class 35. The foregoing is owned by United HomeCare Services, Inc.
`
`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 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.   
`
`In this case, a likelihood of confusion is present because there are similarities between the compared marks and relatedness of the compared
`services.
`
`SIMILARITY OF THE MARKS
`
`The applicant’s and registrants’ respective marks, “SOLÜTION”, “SOLUTIONS”, and “SOLUCION”, are similar in appearance, sound,
`
`connotation, and commercial impression.  
`
`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 Inn at St. John’s, LLC , 126 USPQ2d 1742,
`1746 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re St. Helena Hosp., 774 F.3d 747, 750-51, 113 USPQ2d 1082, 1085 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Geigy Chem. Corp. v. Atlas
`Chem. Indus., Inc., 438 F.2d 1005, 1007, 169 USPQ 39, 40 (C.C.P.A. 1971)), aff’d per curiam , 777 F. App’x 516, 2019 BL 343921 (Fed. Cir.
`2019); TMEP §1207.01(b).
`
`U.S. Registration Nos. 2309323, 3989747, and 3700519
`
`In this instance, the wording in the applied-for mark “SOLUTION” is the singular form of the registered marks “SOLUTIONS”. An applied-for
`mark that is the singular form of a registered mark is essentially identical in sound, appearance, meaning, and commercial impression, and thus
`the marks are confusingly similar.   Swiss Grill Ltd., v. Wolf Steel Ltd., 115 USPQ2d 2001, 2011 n.17 (TTAB 2015) (holding “it is obvious that
`the virtually identical marks [the singular and plural of SWISS GRILL] are confusingly similar”).
`
`Furhter, the overline, underline, and umlaut in applicant’s mark do not obviate the noted similarities because such are likely to be perceived by
`consumers as designs that surround the literal elements in applicant’s mark.  When evaluating a composite mark consisting of words and a
`design, 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 and/or services .   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).  Thus, although marks
`must be compared in their entireties, the word portion is often considered the dominant feature and is accorded greater weight in determining
`
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
`

`

`whether marks are confusingly similar, even where the word portion has been disclaimed.   In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d at 1366-67, 101 USPQ2d
`at 1911 (citing  Giant Food, Inc. v. Nation’s Foodservice, Inc. , 710 F.2d 1565, 1570-71, 218 USPQ2d 390, 395 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). In this case,
`“SOLUTION” would be accorded greater weight because it is the literal element of applicant’s mark that is likely to impress upon consumers,
` be remembered by them, and be used by them to refer to or request applicant’s services. The overline, underline, and umlaut in the mark do not
`obviate the noted significant of “SOLUTION” in applicant’s mark because such are designs that merely accent the literal element
`“SOLUTION”. Thus, “SOLUTION” is the dominant feature and literal element of applicant’s mark that is likely to be perceived by consumers
`as confusingly similar to registrants’ marks for “SOLUTIONS”.
`
`Thus, the applied-for mark and the registered marks are sufficiently similar to find a likelihood of confusion.
`
`U.S. Registration No. 4332362
`
`The registered mark “SOLUCIÓN” is the foreign equivalent of the term in the applied-for mark “SOLÜTION”.  See  attached internet evidence
`from https://translate.google.com/. Under the doctrine of foreign equivalents, a mark in a common, modern foreign language and a mark that is
`its English equivalent may be held confusingly similar.  TMEP §1207.01(b)(vi) ; see, e.g., In re Aquamar, Inc. , 115 USPQ2d 1122, 1127-28
`(TTAB 2015).  Consequently, marks comprised of foreign wording are translated into English to determine similarity in meaning and
`connotation with English word marks.   See Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee en 1772,  396 F.3d 1369, 1377, 73
`USPQ2d 1689, 1696 (Fed. Cir. 2005).  Equivalence in meaning and connotation may be sufficient to find such marks confusingly similar.   See In
`re Aquamar, Inc., 115 USPQ2d at 1127-28;  In re Thomas, 79 USPQ2d at 1025.
`
`The doctrine of foreign equivalents is applied when “the ordinary American purchaser” would “stop and translate” the foreign term into its
`English equivalent.   Palm Bay, 396 F.3d at 1377, 73 USPQ2d at 1696 (quoting  In re Pan Tex Hotel Corp., 190 USPQ 109, 110 (TTAB 1976));
`TMEP §1207.01(b)(vi)(A).  The ordinary American purchaser includes those proficient in the foreign language.  
`In re Spirits Int’l, N.V. , 563
`F.3d 1347, 1352, 90 USPQ2d 1489, 1492 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
`
`Here, Spanish is a common, modern language in the United States.   See In re Aquamar, Inc., 115 USPQ2d 1122.   For example, there are an
`estimated 41 million U.S. residents who speak Spanish. See the attached internet evidence from https://www.cnn.com/. The ordinary American
`purchaser would likely stop and translate the Spanish mark “SOLUCIÓN” to its English equivalent “SOLUTION” because the Spanish
`language is a common, modern language spoken by an appreciable number of consumers in the United States. Applicant’s stylized mark
`contains the literal element “SOLUTION”. Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s marks share equivalence in meaning and connotation, which
`renders the marks confusingly similar.
`
`Because applicant’s and registrants’ marks for “SOLÜTION”, “SOLUTIONS”, and “SOLUCION” are similar in appearance, sound,
`connotation, and commercial impression, the marks are confusingly similar.
`
`RELATEDNESS OF THE SERVICES
`
`The applicant’s relevant services are listed below:
`
`The applied-for mark is “ SOLÜTION” with design for the relevant- amended services:
`
`International Class 035          
`
`Online business risk assessment and business consultation services in the field of health and lifestyle; Market
`analysis and research services, namely, collecting, analyzing, processing and providing customer preference and
`product usage data in the field of health, lifestyle, fitness and food products
`
`International Class 044          
`
`Providing a website featuring information on maintaining a healthy lifestyle, health and nutrition, and wellness;
`Providing a website featuring nutritional information about food; Personalized health and skin assessment and
`health and skin consultation services based on a consumer's lifestyle, health, microbiome, DNA, and genetic
`information
`
`The registrants’ relevant services are listed below:
`
`The registered marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 2309323 and 3989747 are “ SOLUTIONS” in typed and standard characters for
`“ Medical information” in International Class 44. All the foregoing are owned by ConvaTec Inc.
`
`The registered mark in U.S. Registration No. 3700519 is “ SOLUTIONS” in standard characters for “ Geriatric health care
`management services; Health care; Healthcare; Home health care services; Home nursing aid services; Nursing care” in
`International Class 44. The foregoing is owned by United HomeCare Services, Inc.
`
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
`                                                          
` 
` 
` 
`

`

`The registered mark in U.S. Registration No. 4332362 is “ SOLUCION” with design for “ Business management services” in
`International Class 35. The foregoing is owned by United HomeCare Services, Inc.
`
`The applicant’s and registrant’s services are related and could give rise to the mistaken belief that they emanate from the same source.
`
`The 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 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).
`
`In this case, applicant’s and registrant’s services could give rise to the mistaken belief that they emanate from the same source because they are
`commonly provided by the same entity. For example, the previously attached Internet evidence, consisting of third-party health related webpages,
`establishes that the same entity commonly provides the relevant services and markets the services under the same mark, the relevant services are
`sold or provided through the same trade channels and used by the same classes of consumers in the same fields of use, and the services are
`similar or complementary in terms of purpose or function.  See the previously attached internet evidence:
`
`https://www.healthline.com/symptom-checker, showing that the same entity provides medical, health, wellness, and nutrition analysis,
`assessment, consultation, and information services; healthcare information services, namely, providing information in the area of wound
`and skin care management; and medical information;
`https://www.symptoma.com/en/about, showing that the same entity provides medical, health, wellness, and nutrition analysis, assessment,
`consultation, and information services; healthcare information services, namely, providing information in the area of wound and skin care
`management; and medical information;
`the same entity provides medical, health, wellness, and nutrition analysis,
`https://symptoms.webmd.com/default.htm, showing that
`assessment, consultation, and information services and medical information;
`https://ada.com/, showing that the same entity provides medical, health, wellness, and nutrition analysis, assessment, consultation, and
`information services and medical information;
`the same entity provides medical, health,
`https://www.mayoclinic.org/symptom-checker/select-symptom/itt-20009075, showing that
`wellness, and nutrition analysis, assessment, consultation, and information services; healthcare information services, namely, providing
`information in the area of wound and skin care management; and medical information;
`https://symptomchecker.isabelhealthcare.com/, showing that the same entity provides medical, health, wellness, and nutrition analysis,
`assessment, consultation, and information services; healthcare information services, namely, providing information in the area of wound
`and skin care management; and medical information;
`https://infermedica.com/, showing that the same entity provides medical, health, wellness, and nutrition analysis, assessment, consultation,
`and information services; healthcare information services, namely, providing information in the area of wound and skin care management;
`and medical information;
`https://naturalwellnesscorner.com/services/wellness-counseling/, showing that the same entity provides medical, health, wellness, and
`nutrition analysis, assessment, consultation, and information services; medical information; and health care;
`https://theministerofwellness.com/service/healthcoaching/, showing that the same entity provides medical, health, wellness, and nutrition
`analysis, assessment, consultation, and information services and health care;
`the same entity provides medical, health,
`https://www.nourishmintwellness.com/product/initial-wellness-consultation/, showing that
`wellness, and nutrition analysis, assessment, consultation, and information services and health care;
`https://heidilyndaker.com/consultations/, showing that
`the same entity provides medical, health, wellness, and nutrition analysis,
`assessment, consultation, and information services and health care;
`https://connorwellnessclinic.com/, showing that the same entity provides medical, health, wellness, and nutrition analysis, assessment,
`consultation, and information services; medical information; and health care;
`https://www.the-dermatologist.com/content/geriatric-dermatology-generational-approach; showing that geriatric dermatology is a rapidly
`growing field and cosmetic dermatology is increasingly becoming part of the culture for geriatric patients;
`https://wendyrobertsmd.com/, showing that
`the same entity provides medical, health, wellness, and nutrition analysis, assessment,
`consultation, and information services; healthcare information services, namely, providing information in the area of wound and skin care
`management and cosmetic skin procedures to, in part, geriatric patients; medical information; and health care;
`https://www.trinitydermatology.com/, showing that the same entity provides medical, health, wellness, and nutrition analysis, assessment,
`consultation, and information services; healthcare information services, namely, providing information in the area of wound and skin care
`management and cosmetic skin procedures to, in part, geriatric patients; medical information; and health care;
`
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
`

`

`https://hmgderm.com/our-services/, showing that the same entity provides medical, health, wellness, and nutrition analysis, assessment,
`consultation, and information services; healthcare information services, namely, providing information in the area of wound and skin care
`management and cosmetic skin procedures to, in part, geriatric patients; medical information; and health care;
`https://www.trinitydermatology.com/products/, showing that the same entity provides healthcare services and medical information;
`https://www.andersderm.com/products, showing that the same entity provides healthcare services and medical information;
`https://thedermatologygroupcincy.brilliantconnections.com/, showing that
`the same entity provides healthcare services and medical
`information;
`https://www.courtneyclucas.com/, showing the same entity provides business management and health services through business and life
`coaching;
`https://panamacitywellness.com/business-and-life-coaching/, showing the same entity provides business management and health services
`through business and life coaching;
`http://www.paragondc.com/, showing the same entity provides business management and health services through business and life
`coaching;
`https://www.shepherd-llc.com/, showing the same entity provides business management and health services through business and life
`coaching;
`https://www.shepherd-llc.com/coaching-services-1, showing the same entity provides business management and health services through
`business and life coaching.
`
`Further, the previously attached evidence, of third-party healthcare management companies, establishes that the same entity commonly provides
`business management, market assessment, business consultation, and/or healthcare market analysis services. See the previously attached
`evidence:
`
`https://advis.com/services, showing that the same entity commonly provides business and market assessment services in the healthcare
`field;
`http://www.hcmsllc.com/home, showing that the same entity commonly provides business and market assessment and advisory services in
`the healthcare field;
`https://www.medicalmanagement.com/, showing that the same entity commonly provides business and market assessment and advisory
`services in the healthcare field;
`http://www.milliman.com, showing that the same entity commonly provides business and market assessment and advisory services in the
`healthcare field;
`https://entrustmenthealth.com/practice-consulting/, showing that the same entity commonly provides business and market assessment and
`advisory services in the healthcare field.
`
`  See, e.g., In re Davey Prods. Pty Ltd., 92
`Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s services are considered related for likelihood of confusion purposes.
`USPQ2d 1198, 1202-04 (TTAB 2009); In re Toshiba Med. Sys. Corp., 91 USPQ2d 1266, 1268-69, 1271-72 (TTAB 2009).
`
`Upon encountering “SOLÜTION” used on applicant’s services and “SOLUTIONS”, and “SOLUCION” used on registrants’ services,
`consumers are likely to be confused and mistakenly believe that the respective services emanate from a common source. Because the marks are
`similar and the services are related, there is a likelihood of confusion as to the source of applicant’s services.  Therefore, applicant’s mark is not
`entitled to registration under Section 2(d) of Trademark Act.
`
`PARTIAL REFUSAL: SECTION 2(e)(1) – MERELY DESCRIPTIVE
`
`ALL PRIOR ARGUMENTS AND EVIDENCE ARE MAINTAINED AND INCORPORATED HEREIN
`
`THIS REFUSAL APPLIES TO INTERNATIONAL CLASSES 3 AND 5 ONLY
`
`Registration is refused because the applied-for mark merely describes characteristics of the applicant’s goods.   Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1),
`15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1); see TMEP §§1209.01(b), 1209.03 et seq.
`
`  A
`
` mark is merely descriptive if it describes an ingredient, quality, characteristic, function, feature, purpose, or use of an applicant’s goods.  
`
`TMEP §1209.01(b); see, e.g., In re TriVita, Inc., 783 F.3d 872, 874, 114 USPQ2d 1574, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 2015).  
`
`Determining the descriptiveness of a mark is done in relation to an applicant’s goods, the context in which the mark is being used, and the
`possible significance the mark would have to the average purchaser because of the manner of its use or intended use.  See In re The Chamber of
`Commerce of the U.S., 675 F.3d 1297, 1300, 102 USPQ2d 1217, 1219 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing In re Bayer Aktiengesellschaft, 488 F.3d 960,
`
` 
` 
` 
` 
`  
` 
` 
` 
`

`

`963-64, 82 USPQ2d 1828, 1831 (Fed. Cir. 2007)); TMEP §1209.01(b).  Descriptiveness of a mark is not considered in the abstract.  In re Bayer
`Aktiengesellschaft, 488 F.3d at 963-64, 82 USPQ2d at 1831.
`
`In the present case, the literal portion of applicant’s stylized mark is “SOLUTION”, which is defined as “A homogeneous mixture of two or
`more substances, which may be solids, liquids, gases, or a combination of these.” See the attached evidence from https://www.ahdictionary.com/.
`  In this instance, this term “SOLUTION” describes a feature of the applicant’s goods, namely, the applicant is providing cosmetics and skin
`care preparations that are comprised of two or more substances, which may be solids, liquids, gases, or a combination of these. “A mark may be
`merely descriptive even if it does not describe the ‘full scope and extent’ of the applicant’s goods or services.”
`  In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP,
`373 F.3d 1171, 1173, 71 USPQ2d 1370, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citing In re Dial-A-Mattress Operating Corp., 240 F.3d 1341, 1346, 57 USPQ2d
`1807, 1812 (Fed. Cir. 2001)); TMEP §1209.01(b).  It is enough if a mark describes only one significant function, attribute, or property.  In re The
`Chamber of Commerce of the U.S., 675 F.3d 1297, 1300, 102 USPQ2d 1217, 1219 (Fed. Cir. 2012); TMEP §1209.01(b); see In re Oppedahl &
`Larson LLP, 373 F.3d at 1173, 71 USPQ2d at 1371.
`
`The descriptive nature of the word “SOLUTION” in applicant’s marks is demonstrated by the attached evidence, from third- party cosmetic
`webpages, in which the term “SOLUTION” is used to describe cosmetic and skin preparation mixtures. See the previously attached evidence of
`record and the currently attached internet evidence:
`
`https://pureblendnaturals.com/, showing that the word “SOLUTION” is commonly used to describe cosmetic and skin preparation
`mixtures; 
`https://ettaswhiteskin.com/, showing that the word “SOLUTION” is commonly used to describe cosmetic and skin preparation mixtures;
`https://www.amazon.com/, showing that the word “SOLUTION” is commonly used to describe cosmetic and skin preparation mixtures;
`https://www.cew.org/, showing that the word “SOLUTION” is commonly used to describe cosmetic and skin preparation mixtures;
`https://www.facebook.com/, showing that the word “SOLUTION” is commonly used to describe cosmetic and skin preparation mixtures;
`https://www.tampabaytan.com/, showing that the word “SOLUTION” is commonly used to describe cosmetic and skin preparation
`mixtures;
`https://www.scienceofskin.com/, showing that the word “SOLUTION” is commonly used to describe cosmetic and skin preparation
`mixtures;
`https://davisislandspharmacy.com/, showing that the word “SOLUTION” is commonly used to describe cosmetic and skin preparation
`mixtures;
`https://www.walmart.com/, showing that the word “SOLUTION” is commonly used to describe cosmetic and skin preparation mixtures;
`https://www.nationwidechildrens.org/, showing that the word “SOLUTION” is commonly used to describe cosmetic and skin preparation
`mixtures;
`https://www.target.com/, showing that the word “SOLUTION” is commonly used to describe cosmetic and skin preparation mixtures;
`https://www.walgreens.com/, showing that the word “SOLUTION” is commonly used to describe cosmetic and skin preparation mixtures.
`
`Further, the stylization of the applied-for mark does not obviate the noted descriptiveness.  Stylized descriptive or generic wording is registrable
`only if the stylization creates a commercial impression separate and apart from the impression made by the wording itself.  See In re Cordua
`Rests., Inc., 823 F.3d 594, 606, 118 USPQ2d 1632, 1639-40 (Fed. Cir. 2016); In re Northland Aluminum Prods., Inc., 777 F.2d 1556, 1561, 227
`USPQ 961, 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985); TMEP §1209.03(w).  Common and ordinary lettering with minimal stylization, as in this case, is generally not
`sufficiently striking, unique, or distinctive as to make an impression on purchasers separate from the wording.  See In re Sadoru Grp., Ltd., 105
`USPQ2d 1484, 1487 (TTAB 2012). Someone who knows what applicant’s goods are will understand the literal element in the mark,
`“SOLUTION”, to convey information about them. See   DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1254, 103
`USPQ2d 1753, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Tower Tech, Inc., 64 USPQ2d 1314, 1316-17 (TTAB 2002)); In re Mueller Sports. Med.,
`Inc., 126 USPQ2d 1584, 1587 (TTAB 2018).
`
`Accordingly, the proposed mark “SOLÜTION” is merely descriptive of applicant’s goods and registration is properly refused on the Principal
`Register under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act.
`
`ADVISORY: APPLICATION NOT ELIGIBLE FOR SUPPLEMENTAL REGISTER- AS TO PARTIAL SECTION 2(e)(1) REFUSAL
`
`THIS ADVISORY APPLIES TO INTERNATIONAL CLASSES 3 AND 5 ONLY
`
`Although an amendment to the Supplemental Register would normally be an appropriate response to this refusal, such a response is not
`appropriate in the present case.  The instant application was filed under Trademark Act Section 1(b) and is not eligible for registration on the
`Supplemental Register until an acceptable amendment to allege use meeting the requirements of 37 C.F.R. §2.76 has been timely filed.  37 C.F.R.
`§2.47(d); TMEP §§816.02, 1102.03.
`
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
`  
` 
` 
` 
`

`

`If applicant files an acceptable allegation of use and also amends to the Supplemental Register, the application effective filing date will be the
`date applicant met the minimum filing requirements under 37 C.F.R. §2.76(c) for an amendment to allege use.  TMEP §§816.02, 1102.03; see 37
`C.F.R. §2.75(b).  In addition, the undersigned trademark examining attorney will conduct a new search of the USPTO records for conflicting
`marks based on the later application filing date.  TMEP §§206.01, 1102.03.
`
`Although registration on the Supplemental Register does not afford all the benefits of registration on the Principal Register, it does provide the
`following advantages to the registrant:
`
`(1)      
`
`(2)      
`
`(3)      
`
`(4)      
`
`Use of the registration symbol ® with the registered mark in connection with the designated goods and/or services, which provides
`public notice of the registration and potentially deters third parties from using confusingly similar marks.
`
`Inclusion of the registered mark in the USPTO’s database of registered and pending marks , which will (a) make it easier for third
`parties to find it in trade