To:
`
`Subject:
`
`Sent:
`
`Sent As:
`
`Attachments:
`
`Midy, Olivier Joel (fterranella@lawabel.com)
`
`U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 86481412 - EAZY BBQ - 877430 - Request for Reconsideration
`Denied - Return to TTAB
`
`5/18/2016 3:30:17 PM
`
`ECOM101@USPTO.GOV
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
`OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION
`
`U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 86481412
`
`(cid:160) (cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`(cid:160)M
`
`ARK: EAZY BBQ
`
`CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS:
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`FRANK TERRANELLA
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`ABELMAN FRAYNE & SCHWAB
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`666 THIRD AVENUE10TH FLOOR
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`NEW YORK, NY 10017
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`APPLICANT: Midy, Olivier Joel
`
`*86481412*
`
`(cid:160)G
`
`ENERAL TRADEMARK INFORMATION:
`
`http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/index.jsp (cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`VIEW YOUR APPLICATION FILE
`
`(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)
`CORRESPONDENT E-MAIL ADDRESS:(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`(cid:160) 877430(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`fterranella@lawabel.com
`
`REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION DENIED
`
`(cid:160)I
`
`SSUE/MAILING DATE: 5/18/2016
`
`The trademark examining attorney has carefully reviewed applicant’s request for reconsideration and is denying the request for the reasons
`stated below.(cid:160) See 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b)(3); TMEP §§715.03(a)(ii)(B), 715.04(a).(cid:160) The following refusals made final in the Office action dated
`October 23, 2016 are maintained and continue to be final:(cid:160) Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion
`with the mark in U.S. Registration No.(cid:160) 3295871 .(cid:160) Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See TMEP
`§§715.03(a)(ii)(B), 715.04(a).(cid:160) Registration of the applied-for mark The following refusal of descriptiveness made final in the Office action is
`satisfied by the amendment to the Supplemental Register.(cid:160) See TMEP §§715.03(a)(ii)(B), 715.04(a).
`
`(cid:160)S
`
`ECTION 2(d) REFUSAL
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`he FINAL refusal based on U.S. Registration No.(cid:160) 3295871 .(cid:160) Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.
`See TMEP §§715.03(a)(ii)(B), 715.04(a) is repeated and continued.
`
`(cid:160)R
`
`egistration No. 3295871 is for the mark EZBBQ and applicant’s proposed mark is EAZYBBQ and design. (cid:160) There is no argument that the
`goods are confusingly similar.(cid:160) Applicant’s argument is that because the marks are on the Supplemental Register there is a narrow scope of
`protection.
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`he Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board have recognized that marks deemed “weak” or merely
`descriptive are still entitled to protection against the registration by a subsequent user of a similar mark for closely related goods and/or services.(cid:160)
`TMEP §1207.01(b)(ix); see King Candy Co. v. Eunice King’s Kitchen, Inc. , 496 F.2d 1400, 1401, 182 USPQ 108, 109 (C.C.P.A. 1974)
`(likelihood of confusion is “to be avoided, as much between ‘weak’ marks as between ‘strong’ marks, or as between a ‘weak’ and ‘strong
`mark’)); In re Colonial Stores, Inc., 216 USPQ 793, 795 (TTAB 1982) (“even weak marks are entitled to protection against registration of
`similar marks”). (cid:160) This protection extends to marks registered on the Supplemental Register. (cid:160) TMEP §1207.01(b)(ix); see, e.g., In re Clorox
`Co., 578 F.2d 305, 307-08, 198 USPQ 337, 340 (C.C.P.A. 1978); In re Hunke & Jochheim, 185 USPQ 188, 189 (TTAB 1975).
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`he marks are essentially phonetic equivalents and thus sound similar.(cid:160) Similarity in sound alone may be sufficient to support a finding that the
`
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)
`

`

`marks are confusingly similar.(cid:160) 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).
`
`(cid:160)A
`
`pplicant argues that EZ/EASY marks are quite diluted.(cid:160) However there is only the one registration for EZBBQ for use on the goods on the
`register.(cid:160) So the analysis is whether EZBBQ and EAZYBBQ are confusingly similar.(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) Applicant’s design element is not dispositive. (cid:160) The word
`portions of the marks are nearly identical in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression; therefore, the addition of a design
`element does not obviate the similarity of the marks in this case.(cid:160) See In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1206, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1688 (Fed. Cir.
`1993); TMEP §1207.01(c)(ii).
`
`(cid:160)W
`
`here the goods and/or services of an applicant and registrant are identical or virtually identical, the degree of similarity between the marks
`required to support a finding of likelihood of confusion is not as great as in the case of diverse goods and/or services.(cid:160) See In re Bay State
`Brewing Co., 117 USPQ2d 1958, 1960 (TTAB 2016) (citing Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1368, 101 USPQ2d
`1713, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); United Global Media Grp., Inc. v. Tseng, 112 USPQ2d 1039, 1049 (TTAB 2014) (quoting Century 21 Real Estate
`Corp. v. Century Life of Am., 970 F.2d 874, 877, 23 USPQ2d 1698, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 1992)); TMEP §1207.01(b).
`
`When comparing marks, the test is not whether the marks can be distinguished in a side-by-side comparison, but rather whether the marks are
`sufficiently similar in terms of their overall commercial impression that confusion as to the source of the goods and/or services offered under the
`respective marks is likely to result.(cid:160) Midwestern Pet Foods, Inc. v. Societe des Produits Nestle S.A., 685 F.3d 1046, 1053, 103 USPQ2d 1435,
`1440 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Bay State Brewing Co., 117 USPQ2d 1958, 1960 (TTAB 2016) (quoting Coach Servs., Inc. v. Truimph Learning
`LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1368, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); TMEP §1207.01(b).(cid:160) The proper focus is on the recollection of the
`average purchaser, who retains a general rather than specific impression of trademarks.(cid:160) In re Bay State Brewing Co., 117 USPQ2d at 1960 (
`(citing Spoons Rests., Inc., v. Morrison, Inc., 23 USPQ2d 1735, 1741 (TTAB 1991), aff’d per curiam , 972 F.2d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1992)); In re
`C.H. Hanson Co., 116 USPQ2d 1351, 1353 (TTAB 2015) (citing Joel Gott Wines LLC v. Rehoboth Von Gott Inc., 107 USPQ2d 1424, 1430
`(TTAB 2013));TMEP §1207.01(b).
`
`The FINAL refusal under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1) is repeated and continued for the reasons set forth below.(cid:160) See 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1);
`37 C.F.R. §2.63(b).
`
`(cid:160)A
`
`pplicant states that it will be amending to the Supplemental Register in order to obviate the descriptiveness refusal.(cid:160) Therefore, all the reasons
`and issues that were stated in the prior Office action are again repeated and FINAL refusal is continued.
`
`(cid:160)R
`
`egistration is refused because the applied-for mark merely describes the purpose and function of applicant’s goods. (cid:160) Trademark Act Section
`2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1); see TMEP §§1209.01(b), 1209.03 et seq.(cid:160) The purpose and function of the goods is to make the EASY
`BBQ—make BBQ an easy thing.
`
`(cid:160)A
`
` mark is merely descriptive if it describes an ingredient, quality, characteristic, function, feature, purpose or use of the specified goods and/or
`services.(cid:160) TMEP §1209.01(b); see In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d 1293, 1297, 75 USPQ2d 1420, 1421 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Gyulay, 820
`F.2d 1216, 1217-18, 3 USPQ2d 1009, 1010 (Fed. Cir. 1987).(cid:160) Moreover, a mark that identifies a group of users to whom an applicant directs its
`goods and/or services is also merely descriptive.(cid:160) TMEP §1209.03(i); see In re Planalytics, Inc., 70 USPQ2d 1453, 1454 (TTAB 2004).
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`wo major reasons for not protecting descriptive marks are (1) to prevent the owner of a descriptive mark from inhibiting competition in the
`marketplace and (2) to avoid the possibility of costly infringement suits brought by the trademark or service mark owner.(cid:160) In re Abcor Dev.
`Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 813, 200 USPQ 215, 217 (C.C.P.A. 1978); TMEP §1209.(cid:160) Businesses and competitors should be free to use descriptive
`language when describing their own goods and/or services to the public in advertising and marketing materials.(cid:160) See In re Styleclick.com Inc., 58
`USPQ2d 1523, 1527 (TTAB 2001).
`
`(cid:160)I
`
`n re Franklin Cnty. Historical Soc’y , 104 USPQ2d 1085, 1086 (TTAB 2012) (holding CENTER OF SCIENCE AND INDUSTRY merely
`descriptive of operating a museum and conducting workshops, programs, and demonstrations in the field of science); In re Phoseon Tech., Inc.,
`103 USPQ2d 1822, 1823 (TTAB 2012) (holding SEMICONDUCTOR LIGHT MATRIX merely descriptive of light and UV curing systems
`composed primarily of light-emitting diodes (LEDs) for industrial and commercial applications); In re Putman Publ’g Co. , 39 USPQ2d 2021,
`2021-22 (TTAB 1996) (holding FOOD & BEVERAGE ON-LINE merely descriptive of news and information service for the food processing
`industry); In re Copytele, Inc., 31 USPQ2d 1540, 1541-42 (TTAB 1994) (holding SCREEN FAX PHONE merely descriptive of facsimile
`terminals employing electrophoretic displays).
`
`(cid:160)I
`
`n the present case, applicant’s request has not resolved all the outstanding issue, nor does it raise a new issue or provide any new or compelling
`evidence with regard to the outstanding issue in the final Office action.(cid:160) In addition, applicant’s analysis and arguments are not persuasive nor
`do they shed new light on the issues.(cid:160) Accordingly, the request is denied.
`
`(cid:160)A
`
`s applicant has already filed a timely notice of appeal with the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, the Board will be notified to resume the
`appeal.(cid:160) See TMEP §715.04(a).
`
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)
`

`

`/Jacqueline W. Abrams/
`Examining Attorney, Law Office 101
`571-272-9185
`jacky.abrams@uspto.gov INFORMAL ONLY
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`

`

`To:
`
`Subject:
`
`Sent:
`
`Sent As:
`
`Attachments:
`
`Midy, Olivier Joel (fterranella@lawabel.com)
`
`U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 86481412 - EAZY BBQ - 877430 - Request for Reconsideration
`Denied - Return to TTAB
`
`5/18/2016 3:30:18 PM
`
`ECOM101@USPTO.GOV
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
`
`IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING YOUR
`U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION
`
`USPTO OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) HAS ISSUED
`ON 5/18/2016 FOR U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 86481412
`
`Please follow the instructions below:
`
`(cid:160)(
`
`1)(cid:160) TO READ THE LETTER:(cid:160) Click on this link or go to http://tsdr.uspto.gov, enter the U.S. application serial number, and click on
`“Documents.”
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`he Office action may not be immediately viewable, to allow for necessary system updates of the application, but will be available within 24
`hours of this e-mail notification.
`
`(cid:160)(
`
`2)(cid:160) TIMELY RESPONSE IS REQUIRED:(cid:160) Please carefully review the Office action to determine (1) how to respond, and (2) the applicable
`response time period.(cid:160) Your response deadline will be calculated from 5/18/2016 (or sooner if specified in the Office action).(cid:160) For information
`regarding response time periods, see http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/process/status/responsetime.jsp.
`
`(cid:160)D
`
`o NOT hit “Reply” to this e-mail notification, or otherwise e-mail your response because the USPTO does NOT accept e-mails as
`responses to Office actions.(cid:160)
`Instead, the USPTO recommends that you respond online using the Trademark Electronic Application System
`(TEAS) response form located at http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp.
`
`(cid:160)(
`
`3)(cid:160) QUESTIONS:(cid:160) For questions about the contents of the Office action itself, please contact the assigned trademark examining attorney.(cid:160) For
`technical assistance in accessing or viewing the Office action in the Trademark Status and Document Retrieval (TSDR) system, please e-mail
`TSDR@uspto.gov.
`
`WARNING
`
`(cid:160)F
`
`ailure to file the required response by the applicable response deadline will result in the ABANDONMENT of your application.(cid:160) For
`more information regarding abandonment, see http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/basics/abandon.jsp.
`
`PRIVATE COMPANY SOLICITATIONS REGARDING YOUR APPLICATION:(cid:160) Private companies not associated with the USPTO are
`using information provided in trademark applications to mail or e-mail trademark-related solicitations.(cid:160) These companies often use names that
`closely resemble the USPTO and their solicitations may look like an official government document.(cid:160) Many solicitations require that you pay
`
`“fees.” (cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`Please carefully review all correspondence you receive regarding this application to make sure that you are responding to an official document
`from the USPTO rather than a private company solicitation.(cid:160) All official USPTO correspondence will be mailed only from the “United States
`Patent and Trademark Office” in Alexandria, VA; or sent by e-mail from the domain “@uspto.gov.” (cid:160) For more information on how to handle
`private company solicitations, see http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/solicitation_warnings.jsp.
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)
`