UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`(cid:160) (cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) SERIAL NO:(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) MARK: TIGER-SUL(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) (cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160) (cid:160)
`Mary Deegan(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`H. J. Baker & Bro., Inc.(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`WESTPORT, CT 06880-6444(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) APPLICANT:(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(CANADA) CO.(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) (cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO :(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`N/A(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) CORRESPONDENT E-MAIL ADDRESS:(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`(cid:160) TIGER-SUL PRODUCTS
`
`OFFICE ACTION
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`O AVOID ABANDONMENT, THE OFFICE MUST RECEIVE A PROPER RESPONSE TO THIS OFFICE ACTION WITHIN 6 MONTHS
`OF THE ISSUE/MAILING DATE.
`
`(cid:160)I
`
`SSUE/MAILING DATE:
`
`The assigned trademark examining attorney has reviewed the referenced application and has determined the following:
`
`Likelihood of Confusion
`Registration of the proposed mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 2579948 and
`2652435.(cid:160) Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.(cid:160) See the enclosed registrations.
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`he Court in In re E. I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (C.C.P.A. 1973), listed the principal factors to be considered
`in determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d).(cid:160) Any one of the factors listed may be dominant in any given case,
`depending upon the evidence of record.(cid:160) In re Dixie Restaurants, Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In this case, the
`following factors are the most relevant:(cid:160) similarity of the marks, similarity of the goods and/or services, and similarity of trade channels of the
`goods and/or services.(cid:160) See In re Opus One, Inc., 60 USPQ2d 1812 (TTAB 2001); In re Dakin’s Miniatures Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1593 (TTAB
`1999); In re Azteca Restaurant Enterprises, Inc., 50 USPQ2d 1209 (TTAB 1999); In re L.C. Licensing Inc., 49 USPQ2d 1379 (TTAB 1998);
`TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`aking into account the relevant Du Pont factors, a likelihood of confusion determination in this case involves a two-part analysis.(cid:160) First, the
`marks are compared for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression.(cid:160) In re E .I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476
`F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (C.C.P.A. 1973).(cid:160) Second, the goods or services are compared to determine whether they are similar or related or
`whether the activities surrounding their marketing are such that confusion as to origin is likely.(cid:160) In re National Novice Hockey League, Inc., 222
`USPQ 638 (TTAB 1984); In re August Storck KG, 218 USPQ 823 (TTAB 1983); In re Int’l Tel. and Tel. Corp. , 197 USPQ 910 (TTAB 1978);
`Guardian Prods. Co., v. Scott Paper Co., 200 USPQ 738 (TTAB 1978); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`he applicant’s mark is TIGER-SUL and design. (cid:160) The registrants’ marks are TIGER TREE and TIGER BLOOM.
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`he applicant’s mark is similar to the registrants’ marks because the dominant portion of the applicant’s mark is identical in sound, appearance
`and meaning to the dominant portion of the registrants’ marks. (cid:160) The differences in the marks are minor and do not change the commercial
`impression of the marks.
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`he applicant’s goods are “Fertilizer.” (cid:160) The registrants’ respective goods are “Fertilizer, namely orchid food” and “Liquid plant fertilizer for
`domestic and agricultural use.”
`
`*76677603*
`
`RESPOND TO THIS ACTION:
`http://www.uspto.gov/teas/eTEASpageD.htm
`
`(cid:160)G
`
`ENERAL TRADEMARK INFORMATION:
`http://www.uspto.gov/main/trademarks.htm
`
`76/677603
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS:
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`228 SAUGATUCK AVE
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)
`

`
`(cid:160)T
`
`(cid:160) Likelihood of confusion is determined on the basis
`he applicant’s goods are related to the registrants’ goods because all consist of fertilizer.
`of the goods or services as they are identified in the application and the registration.(cid:160) Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press Inc., 281 F.3d 1261,
`62 USPQ2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2002); In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1690 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 1993); J & J Snack Foods Corp. v.
`McDonald’s Corp. , 932 F.2d 1460, 18 USPQ2d 1889 (Fed. Cir. 1991); Octocom Systems Inc. v. Houston Computer Services Inc., 918 F.2d 937,
`16 USPQ2d 1783 (Fed. Cir. 1990).(cid:160) Since the identification of the applicant’s goods and/or services is very broad, it is presumed that the
`application encompasses all goods of the type described, including those in the registrant’s more specific identification, that they move in all
`normal channels of trade and that they are available to all potential customers.(cid:160) TMEP §1207.01(a)(iii).
`
`(cid:160)A
`
`ccordingly, because confusion as to source is likely, registration is refused under Trademark Act Section 2(d).
`
`(cid:160)A
`
`lthough the trademark examining attorney has refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal to register by submitting evidence and
`arguments in support of registration.(cid:160) If applicant chooses to respond to the refusal to register, then applicant must also respond to the following
`requirements.
`
`Names and Citizenship of General Partners
`Applicant must specify the names and the national citizenship (for individuals) or the U.S. state or foreign country of organization or
`incorporation of the general partners, as appropriate.(cid:160) 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(3)(iii); TMEP §§803.03(b) and 803.04.
`
`Color Claim
`Applicant has submitted a color drawing and color location statement, but has not submitted the required color claim.(cid:160) Applications for color
`marks must include both a list of the colors that are claimed as a feature of the mark and a description of where the colors appear in the mark.(cid:160) 37
`C.F.R. §2.52(b)(1); TMEP §807.07 et seq.(cid:160) Common color names should be used to describe the colors in the mark, e.g., magenta, yellow,
`turquoise.(cid:160) TMEP §807.07(a)(ii).
`
`(cid:160)A
`
`pplicant must identify the colors that are claimed as a feature of the mark using the following format:(cid:160) “The colors [specify] are claimed as a
`
`feature of the mark.”(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`Declaration not Dated
`Applicant must specify the date the application declaration was signed.(cid:160) TMEP §804.01(b).
`
`Specimen of Use
`The specimen is not acceptable because it does not show the applied-for mark in use in commerce.(cid:160) An application based on Section 1(a) must
`include a specimen showing the applied-for mark in use in commerce for each class of goods.(cid:160) Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45, 15 U.S.C.
`
`§§1051 and 1127; 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv) and 2.56; TMEP §904.(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`The specimen is not acceptable as evidence of actual trademark use because it consists of a printer’s proof of a label and it not in actual use
`commerce.(cid:160) The specimen may not be a "picture" of the mark, such as an artist's drawing or a printer's proof that merely illustrates what the mark
`looks like and is not actually used on or in connection with the goods in commerce.(cid:160) TMEP §904.04.(cid:160) Thus it fails to show proper use on the
`goods or on packaging of the goods.
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`herefore, applicant must submit the following:
`
`(1)(cid:160)(cid:160) A substitute specimen showing the mark in use in commerce for the goods specified in the application.
`
`(2)(cid:160)(cid:160) The following statement, verified with an affidavit or signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20:(cid:160) “ The substitute specimen was in
`use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application.” (cid:160) 37 C.F.R. §2.59(a); TMEP §904.09.(cid:160) If submitting a
`specimen requires an amendment to the dates of use, applicant must also verify the amended dates.(cid:160) 37 C.F.R. §2.71(c).
`
`(cid:160)E
`
`xamples of specimens for goods are tags, labels, instruction manuals, containers, photographs that show the mark on the goods or packaging, or
`displays associated with the goods at their point of sale.(cid:160) TMEP §§904.04 et seq.
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`he following is a sample declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20 with a supporting statement for a substitute specimen:
`
`The undersigned being warned that willful false statements and the like are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under 18 U.S.C.
`§1001, and that such willful false statements and the like may jeopardize the validity of the application or document or any registration
`resulting there from, declares that the substitute specimen was in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application; all
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`

`
`statements made of his/her own knowledge are true; and all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true.
`
`_____________________________
`(Signature)
`
`(cid:160)_
`
`____________________________
`(Print or Type Name and Position)
`
`(cid:160)_
`
`____________________________
`(Date)
`
`(cid:160)I
`
`f applicant cannot satisfy the above requirements, applicant may amend the Section 1(a) filing basis (use in commerce) to Section 1(b) (intent to
`use basis), for which no specimen is required.(cid:160) However, should applicant amend the basis to Section 1(b), registration cannot be granted until
`applicant later amends the application back to use in commerce by filing an acceptable allegation of use with a proper specimen.(cid:160) 15 U.S.C.
`
`§1051(c); 37 C.F.R. §§2.76, 2.88; TMEP Chapter 1100.(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`In order to amend to Section 1(b), applicant must submit the following statement, verified with an affidavit or a signed declaration under 37
`C.F.R. §2.20:(cid:160) “ Applicant has had a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce on or in connection with the goods or services
`listed in the application as of the filing date of the application.” (cid:160) 15 U.S.C. §1051(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(2) and 2.35(b)(1); TMEP
`§806.03(c).
`
`(cid:160)P
`
`ending a proper response, registration is refused because the specimen does not show the applied-for mark in use in commerce as a trademark.(cid:160)
`15 U.S.C. §§1051 and 1127; 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv) and 2.56.
`
`If applicant has questions about its application or needs assistance in responding to this Office action, please telephone the assigned trademark
`examining attorney directly at the number below.
`
`/Robert J. Struck/
`Robert J. Struck
`Trademark Examining Attorney
`Law Office 109
`Phone - (571) 272-1513
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)
`RESPOND TO THIS ACTION: If there are any questions about the Office action, please contact the assigned examining attorney. A response
`to this Office Action should be filed using the Office’s Response to Office action form available at
`http://www.uspto.gov/teas/eTEASpageD.htm.(cid:160) If notification of this Office action was received via e-mail, no response using this form may be
`filed for 72 hours after receipt of the notification.(cid:160) Do not attempt to respond by e-mail as the USPTO does not accept e-mailed responses.
`
`(cid:160)I
`
`f responding by paper mail, please include the following information: the application serial number, the mark, the filing date and the name,
`title/position, telephone number and e-mail address of the person signing the response.(cid:160) Please use the following address: Commissioner for
`Trademarks, P.O. Box 1451, Alexandria, VA 22313-1451.
`
`(cid:160)S
`
`TATUS CHECK: Check the status of the application at least once every six months from the initial filing date using the USPTO Trademark
`Applications and Registrations Retrieval (TARR) online system at http://tarr.uspto.gov.(cid:160) When conducting an online status check, print and
`maintain a copy of the complete TARR screen.(cid:160) If the status of your application has not changed for more than six months, please contact the
`assigned examining attorney.
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`

`
`Print: Sep 10, 200?
`
`T606674-{I
`
`DESIGN MARK
`
`Serial Number
`16066740
`
`Status
`REGISTERED
`
`Word Marl:
`TIGER BLOOM
`
`Standard Character Mark
`No
`
`Registration NI.II"I'IhBf
`2652435
`
`Date Registered
`2002fllfl9
`
`Type of Mark
`TRADEMARK
`
`Register
`PRINCIPAL
`
`Mark Drawing Code
`[1
`TYPED DRAWING
`
`D"NI1Bf
`UNITED COMPOST AND ORGANICS CORPORATION CALIFORNIA PO BOX 787 ARCATA
`CALIFORNIA 95518
`
`Goodslservices
`Class Status —— ACTIVE.
`
`IC 001.
`
`US
`
`001 O05 O06 O10 O26 046.
`
`G & 3:
`
`Liquid plant fertilizer for domestic and agricultural use. First Use:
`2001fO9fO6. First Use In Commerce: ZOOIKOBKU6.
`
`Disclaimer Statement
`NO CLAIM IS MADE TO THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO USE "BLOOM" APART FROM THE
`MRRK AS SHOWN.
`
`Filing Date
`ZOOOHOEHOB
`
`Examining Attorney
`PIGNATELLO, ELIZABETH
`
`Attorney of Record
`James E. Eakin
`
`

`
`
`
`TIGER BLOOMTIGER BLOOM
`
`

`
`Print: Sep 10, 200?
`
`76Ifl?95I‘J5
`
`DESIGN MARK
`
`Serial Number
`16079505
`
`Status
`REGISTERED
`
`Word Marl:
`TIGER TREE
`
`Standard Character Mark
`No
`
`Registration NI.II"I'IhBf
`2579948
`
`Date Registered
`2002fO6fll
`
`Type of Mark
`TRADEMARK
`
`Register
`PRINCIPAL
`
`Mark Drawing Code
`[I] TYPED DRAWING
`
`U'WI1Bf
`Lyman, Loralee Ann INDIVIDUAL UNITED STATES P. O. Box 1861 Monterey
`CALIFORNIA 93940
`
`Goodslse-wines
`Class Status —— ACTIVE.
`
`IC 001.
`
`US
`
`001 O05 O06 O10 O26 046.
`
`G & s:
`
`Fertilizer, namely orchid food. First Use: ZUOIKOBHIT. First Use In
`Commerce: ZOOIKOSKI7.
`
`Filing Date
`ZOOOHOEHEO
`
`Examining Attorney
`BUSH, KAREN R’.
`
`Attorney Of RBt‘.'l'.'II"d
`GWENDOLEN S. BUCK