To:
`
`Subject:
`
`Sent:
`Sent As:
`
`E. Anthony Figg(PTO-TM-Email@rfem.com)
`U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 90904642 - ORYZA HEALTHY -
`4942-105
`January 12, 2023 01:38:20 PM EST
`tmng.notices@uspto.gov
`
`Attachments
`
`6403169
`screencapture-en-wikipedia-org-wiki-Oryza-16733781382271
`screencapture-www-trubodywellness-com-phytoceramides-skincare-with-oryza-ceramide-
`pcd-1-month-supply-16733790288791
`screencapture-www-walmart-com-ip-Sweet-Rice-Oryza-Glutinosa-Dry-Root-Liquid-Extract-
`Expertly-Extracted-Trusted-HawaiiPharm-Brand-Absolutely-Natural-Proudly-made-USA-
`Tincture-2-Fl-Oz-2931856692-16733790805171
`screencapture-www-theherbsource-com-Oryza-Rice-Sprout-Gu-Ya-Single-Herb-Alcohol-
`Fluid-Extract_p_169436-html-16733791231911
`screencapture-www-timechallengerlabs-com-trim-slim-16733791891751
`screencapture-www-bhrum-com-product-page-joint-support-16733792296151
`screencapture-www-nutritionalwellness-com-nutrition-herbs-o-oryza-php-16733795278711
`screencapture-globalfoodbook-com-14-outstanding-benefits-of-rice-oryza-16733795520701
`screencapture-www-medicinenet-com-rice_bran-supplements-vitamins-htm-16733798154471
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
`Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
`
`U.S. Application Serial No.  90904642
`
`Mark:   ORYZA HEALTHY
`
`Correspondence Address:  
`E. Anthony Figg
`ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, PC
`901 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Suite 900 East
`Washington DC 20001 UNITED STATES
`
`Applicant:   Oryza Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
`
`Reference/Docket No.  4942-105
`
`Correspondence Email Address:   PTO-TM-Email@rfem.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NONFINAL OFFICE ACTION
`
`

`

`Response deadline.  File a response to this nonfinal Office action within three months of the “Issue
`date” below to avoid abandonment of the application. Review the Office action and respond using one
`of the links to the appropriate electronic forms in the “How to respond” section below.
`
`Request an extension.  For a fee, applicant may request one three-month extension of the response
`deadline prior to filing a response. The request must be filed within three months of the “Issue date”
`below. If the extension request is granted, the USPTO must receive applicant’s response to this letter
`within six months of the “Issue date” to avoid abandonment of the application.
`
`Issue date:   January 12, 2023
`
`• New Issue:  Section 2(d) Refusal - Likelihood of Confusion
`• New Issue:   Section 2(a) Refusal - Mark is Deceptive
`•  New Issue:  Alternative Section 2(e)(1) Refusal - Mark is Deceptively Misdescriptive  
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Based on information and/or documentation in applicant’s most recent response, the trademark
`examining attorney now issues the following new refusals:  Section 2(d) Refusal - Likelihood of
`Confusion,  Section 2(a) Refusal - Mark is Deceptive, and  Alternative Section 2(e)(1) Refusal - Mark is
`Deceptively Misdescriptive.  See TMEP §§706, 711.02. 
`
`Further, the following requirement  has been satisfied:  Request for Information.  See TMEP §713.02. In
`addition, the following  refusal  and requirement are withdrawn: Section 2(e)(1) Refusal - Merely
`Descriptive and Identification of Goods.  See id.
`
`Moreover, the previously referenced prior-filed application, U.S. Application Serial No. 79337051, is
`no longer a bar to registration.
`
`SUMMARY OF ISSUES that applicant must address:
`
`           
`           
`           
`
`SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
`
`Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in
`U.S. Registration No. 6403169. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP
`§§1207.01 et seq. See the attached registration.
`
`Applicant’s mark is ORYZA HEALTHY  (in standard characters) for “ Dietary supplements” in
`International Class 5. 
`
`Registrant’s mark is ORYZA SYNERGIZER (in standard characters) for “Dietary and nutritional
`supplements containing proprietary hydrolyzed functional nutrients from select fractions and strains of
`rice” in International Class 5.
`
`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). 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.
`
`Similarity of the Marks
`
`Applicant’s mark is ORYZA HEALTHY  (in standard characters). 
`
`Registrant’s mark is ORYZA SYNERGIZER (in standard characters) .
`
`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 Ox Paperboard, LLC, 2020
`USPQ2d 10878, at *4 (TTAB 2020) (citing In re Bay State Brewing Co., 117 USPQ2d 1958, 1960
`(TTAB 2016)); In re Inn at St. John’s, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1742, 1746 (TTAB 2018); TMEP
`§1207.01(b); see In re St. Helena Hosp., 774 F.3d 747, 750-51, 113 USPQ2d 1082, 1085 (Fed. Cir.
`2014).
`
`In the present case, applicant’s mark and registrant’s mark create similar commercial impressions
`because each of the marks feature the nearly identical term “ORYZA”.  Marks may be confusingly
`similar in appearance where similar terms or phrases or similar parts of terms or phrases appear in the
`compared marks and create a similar overall commercial impression. See Crocker Nat’l Bank v.
`Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 228 USPQ 689, 690-91 (TTAB 1986), aff’d sub nom.
`Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 811 F.2d 1490, 1495, 1
`USPQ2d 1813, 1817 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (holding COMMCASH and COMMUNICASH confusingly
`
`

`

`similar); In re Corning Glass Works, 229 USPQ 65, 66 (TTAB 1985) (holding CONFIRM and
`CONFIRMCELLS confusingly similar); In re Pellerin Milnor Corp., 221 USPQ 558, 560 (TTAB
`1983) (holding MILTRON and MILLTRONICS confusingly similar); TMEP §1207.01(b)(ii)-(iii).  As
`such, consumers retaining only a general rather than a specific impression of trademarks are likely to
`believe that the applicant’s and registrant’s marks identify the same source as applied to the respective
`goods.
`
`Further, this identical wording is also the first wording in each of the respective marks, and consumers
`are generally more inclined to focus on the first word, prefix, or syllable in any trademark or service
`mark. See Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F.3d 1369,
`1372, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1692 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (finding similarity between VEUVE ROYALE and two
`VEUVE CLICQUOT marks in part because “VEUVE . . . remains a ‘prominent feature’ as the first
`word in the mark and the first word to appear on the label”); Century 21 Real Estate Corp. v. Century
`Life of Am., 970 F.2d 874, 876, 23 USPQ2d 1698, 1700 (Fed Cir. 1992) (finding similarity between
`CENTURY 21 and CENTURY LIFE OF AMERICA in part because “consumers must first notice th[e]
`identical lead word”); see also In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1303, 128 USPQ2d 1047,
`1049 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (finding “the identity of the marks’ two initial words is particularly significant
`because consumers typically notice those words first”).  Thus, consumers encountering the marks may
`believe that applicant’s mark merely identifies a line of goods from the same source as registrant’s
`mark.
`
`Accordingly, applicant’s and registrant’s marks are confusingly similar.
`
`Relatedness of the Goods
`
`Applicant’s goods are for “ Dietary supplements” in International Class 5. 
`
`Registrant’s goods are  for “Dietary and nutritional supplements containing proprietary hydrolyzed
`functional nutrients from select fractions and strains of rice” in International Class 5.
`
`The compared goods 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); see Made in Nature, LLC v. Pharmavite LLC, 2022 USPQ2d
`557, at *44 (TTAB 2022) (quoting In re Jump Designs LLC, 80 USPQ2d 1370, 1374 (TTAB 2006)).
`
`Determining likelihood of confusion is based on the description of the goods and/or services stated in
`the application and registration at issue, not on extrinsic evidence of actual use.  See In re Detroit
`Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1307, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1052 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing In re
`i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1325, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1749 (Fed. Cir. 2017)).  
`
`In this case, the application uses broad wording to describe “Dietary supplements”, which presumably
`encompasses all goods and/or services of the type described, including registrant’s more narrow
`“Dietary and nutritional supplements containing proprietary hydrolyzed functional nutrients from select
`fractions and strains of rice”.  See, e.g., Made in Nature, LLC v. Pharmavite LLC, 2022 USPQ2d 557,
`
`

`

`at *44 (TTAB 2022); In re Solid State Design Inc., 125 USPQ2d 1409, 1412-15 (TTAB 2018); Sw.
`Mgmt., Inc. v. Ocinomled, Ltd., 115 USPQ2d 1007, 1025 (TTAB 2015).  Thus, applicant’s and
`registrant’s goods are legally identical.  See, e.g., In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 127 USPQ2d 1627, 1629
`(TTAB 2018) (citing Tuxedo Monopoly, Inc. v. Gen. Mills Fun Grp., Inc., 648 F.2d 1335, 1336, 209
`USPQ 986, 988 (C.C.P.A. 1981); Inter IKEA Sys. B.V. v. Akea, LLC, 110 USPQ2d 1734, 1745 (TTAB
`2014); Baseball Am. Inc. v. Powerplay Sports Ltd., 71 USPQ2d 1844, 1847 n.9 (TTAB 2004)).
`
`Additionally, the goods of the parties have no restrictions as to nature, type, channels of trade, or
`classes of purchasers and are “presumed to travel in the same channels of trade to the same class of
`purchasers.”  In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
`(quoting Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1268, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1005
`(Fed. Cir. 2002)); Made in Nature, LLC v. Pharmavite LLC, 2022 USPQ2d 557, at *49.  Thus,
`applicant’s and registrant’s goods are related.
`
`Section 2(d) Refusal – Conclusion
`
`The marks are similar in overall commercial impression, and the goods are highly related.  It is likely
`that a consumer would mistakenly believe applicant’s goods are offered by registrant or vice versa.  For
`these reasons, registration is refused pursuant to Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.
`
`Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal(s) by
`submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.
`
`Applicant should note the following additional grounds for refusal.
`
`SECTION 2(a) REFUSAL – MARK IS DECEPTIVE
`
`Registration is refused because the applied-for mark consists of or includes deceptive matter in relation
`to the identified goods. Trademark Act Section 2(a), 15 U.S.C. §1052(a).
`
` A
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` term is deceptive when all three of the following criteria are met:
`
`Is the term misdescriptive of the character, quality, function, composition, or
`(1)      
`use of the goods [and/or services]?
`
`If so, are prospective purchasers likely to believe that the misdescription
`(2)      
`actually describes the goods [and/or services]?
`
`If so, is the misdescription likely to affect the purchasing decision of a
`(3)      
`significant portion of relevant consumers?
`
`
`In re Tapco Int’l Corp., 122 USPQ2d 1369, 1371 (TTAB 2017) (citing In re Budge Mfg. Co., 857 F.2d
`773, 775, 8 USPQ2d 1259, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 1988)); TMEP §1203.02(b); see also In re Spirits Int’l,
`N.V., 563 F.3d 1347, 1353, 1356, 90 USPQ2d 1489, 1492-93, 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (holding that the
`test for materiality incorporates a requirement that a “significant portion of the relevant consumers be
`deceived”).
`
`In this case, applicant’s mark consists of the wording “ORYZA”, which indicates the goods contain
`plants from the grass family. See attached evidence from Wikipedia. However, according to the
`
`

`

`evidence of record, applicant’s goods do not in fact contain this ingredient or component.
`
`Consumers would be likely to believe this misdescription in the mark, because the attached evidence
`from Tru Body Wellness, Walmart, the Herb Source, Time Challenger Labs, and Bhrum shows that it is
`common in applicant’s industry for such goods to include plants from the grass family, and consumers
`have come to expect such ingredient or component.  Specifically, this evidence shows third parties
`providing supplements containing "ORYZA" or plants from the grass family as a component or
`ingredient.
`
` A
`
` misdescriptive ingredient or component would be material to the purchasing decision of a significant
`portion of the relevant consumers when the evidence demonstrates that the misdescription would make
`the product or service more appealing or desirable to prospective purchasers. See In re White Jasmine
`LLC, 106 USPQ2d 1385, 1392 (TTAB 2013) (citing In re Juleigh Jeans Sportswear Inc., 24 USPQ2d
`1694, 1698-99 (TTAB 1992)); TMEP §1203.02(d).
`
`In the present case, the attached evidence from Nurtitional Wellness.com, Global Foodbook,
`and  Medicine.net shows that products with the ingredient or component Oryza, are more appealing or
`desirable because it is used for  reduction of cardiovascular risks, antioxidant properties, control of
`diabetes, reduction of cholesterol, treatment of skin inflammation, and strengthening the immune
`system, among other things. Thus, the misdescription is likely to affect a significant portion of the
`relevant consumers’ decision to purchase applicant’s goods.
`
`Moreover, the descriptive wording "HEALTHY" does not obviate this refusal.  A mark is deceptive
`even if only a portion of the mark is deceptive. See In re White Jasmine LLC, 106 USPQ2d 1385, 1391
`(TTAB 2013) (“It is well established that a mark may be found deceptive on the basis of a single
`deceptive term that is embedded in a larger mark . . . .”); Am. Speech-Language-Hearing Ass’n v. Nat’l
`Hearing Aid Soc’y, 224 USPQ 798, 808 (TTAB 1984). Trademark Act Section 2(a) prohibits
`registration of deceptive matter, not merely deceptive marks. See In re White Jasmine LLC, 106
`USPQ2d at 1391; TMEP §1203.02. 5-3
`
` A
`
` mark that is deceptive under Section 2(a) is not registrable on the Principal or Supplemental Register
`under any circumstances, regardless of whether applicant provides a disclaimer of the deceptive 
`matter.  See Am. Speech-Language-Hearing Ass’n v. Nat'l Hearing Aid Soc’y, 224 USPQ 798, 808
`(TTAB 1984); In re Charles S. Loeb Pipes, Inc., 190 USPQ 238, 241 (TTAB 1975); TMEP §§1203.02,
`1209.04. Accordingly, applicant may not overcome this refusal by submitting a claim of acquired
`distinctiveness under Section 2(f), amending the application to the Supplemental Register, and/or
`disclaiming the deceptive matter in the mark.
`
`Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal(s) by
`submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.
`
`Applicant should note the following additional grounds for refusal.
`
`SECTION
`ALTERNATIVE
`MISDESCRIPTIVE
`
`In the alternative, if the misdescription is later determined to not be likely to affect the purchasing
`decision of a significant portion of relevant consumers, registration is refused because the applied-for
`mark is deceptively misdescriptive of applicant’s goods. Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C.
`
`2(e)(1) REFUSAL
`
`– MARK
`
`IS DECEPTIVELY
`
`

`

`that
`
`the wording “ORYZA” and
`
`§1052(e)(1); TMEP §1209.04.
`
`An applied-for mark is deceptively misdescriptive when (1) the mark misdescribes the goods and/or
`services and (2) consumers would be likely to believe the misrepresentation. In re Dolce Vita
`Footwear, Inc., 2021 USPQ2d 478, at *11 (TTAB 2021) (citing In re Budge Mfg. Co., 857 F.2d 773,
`775, 8 USPQ2d 1259, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 1988); In re White Jasmine LLC, 106 USPQ2d 1385, 1394
`(TTAB 2013)); TMEP §1209.04.
`
`Regarding the first part of the test, a proposed mark is misdescriptive when it merely describes the
`goods and/or services and the description is false. See In re Dolce Vita Footwear, Inc., 2021 USPQ2d
`478, at *11 (quoting In re Hinton, 116 USPQ2d 1051, 1052 (TTAB 2015); In re Phillips-Van Heusen,
`63 USPQ2d 1047, 1048 (TTAB 2005)); TMEP §1209.04. To be merely descriptive, a mark must
`immediately convey knowledge of an ingredient, quality, characteristic, feature, function, purpose, or
`use of the applicant’s goods or services. In re Chamber of Commerce of the U.S., 675 F.3d 1297, 1300,
`102 USPQ2d 1217, 1219 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Bayer Aktiengesellschaft, 488 F.3d 960, 963,
`82 USPQ2d 1828, 1831 (Fed. Cir. 2007)); TMEP §1209.01(b).
`
`the previously attached dictionary definitions show
`Here,
`“HEALTHY” are defined as follows: 
`
`    Oryza: “a small genus (family Gramineae) of tropical cereal grasses having perfect flowers with six
`stamens”, which includes the “major food crop rice (species Oryza sativa and     Oryza glaberrima)”
`     healthy:  “beneficial to one's physical, mental, or emotional state : conducive to or associated with
`good health or reduced risk of disease”
`
`Thus, the wording “ORYZA” and “HEALTHY” merely describes a feature or characteristic of
`applicant’s goods, namely, applicant’s supplements feature Oryza as an ingredient conducive to or
`associated with good health or reduced risk of disease.
`
`Further, as mentioned above, applicant  's mark  consists of the wording “ORYZA”  for dietary
`supplements. As shown by the attached evidence from Wikipedia, "ORYZA" is "a genus of plants in
`the grass family". Because the mark refers to "ORYZA", the public will believe the goods contain
`plants in the grass family. It is plausible that the goods would possess such a feature or characteristic
`because the attached evidence from  Tru Body Wellness, Walmart, the Herb Source, Time Challenger
`Labs, and Bhrum shows that dietary supplements can be made from plants in the grass
`family.   However, applicant has stated for the record that the goods do not in fact possess this
`ingredient or component.
`
`Regarding the second part of the test, the Board has applied the reasonably prudent consumer test in
`assessing whether consumers are likely to believe the misrepresentation. In re Dolce Vita Footwear,
`Inc., 2021 USPQ2d 478, at *11 (citing In re Hinton, 116 USPQ2d at 1052).
`
`In this case, the attached evidence from Tru Body Wellness, Walmart, the Herb Source, Time
`Challenger Labs, Bhrum,  Nurtitional Wellness.com, Global Foodbook, and  Medicine.net shows that the
`reasonably prudent consumer is likely to believe the representation because consumers regularly
`encounter dietary supplements made from plants in the grass family.   Specifically, this evidence shows
`third parties providing supplements containing "ORYZA" or plants from the grass family as a
`component or ingredient.
`
`
`

`

`Accordingly, the proposed mark  is deceptively misdescriptive, and registration is properly refused on
`the Principal Register under Section 2(e)(1). 
`
`Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal(s) by
`submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.
`
`ASSISTANCE:  Please call or email the assigned trademark examining attorney with questions about
`this Office action. Although an examining attorney cannot provide legal advice, the examining attorney
`can provide additional explanation about the refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) in this Office action. See
`TMEP §§705.02, 709.06.
`
`The USPTO does not accept emails as responses to Office actions; however, emails can be used for
`informal communications and are included in the application record. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(c), 2.191;
`TMEP §§304.01-.02, 709.04-.05.
`
`How to respond.   File a response form to this nonfinal Office action or file a request form for an
`extension of time to file a response.  
`
`
`
`/Melissa Sturman/
`Melissa Sturman
`Trademark Examining Attorney
`Law Office 125
`(571) 272-2781
`Melissa.Sturman@USPTO.GOV
`
`
`
`RESPONSE GUIDANCE
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Missing the deadline for responding to this letter will cause the application to abandon.  A
`response or extension request must be received by the USPTO before 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time
`of the last day of the response deadline.  Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS)
`system availability could affect an applicant’s ability to timely respond.  For help resolving
`technical issues with TEAS, email TEAS@uspto.gov.
`
`Responses signed by an unauthorized party are not accepted and can cause the application to
`abandon.  If applicant does not have an attorney, the response must be signed by the individual
`applicant, all joint applicants, or someone with legal authority to bind a juristic applicant.  If
`applicant has an attorney, the response must be signed by the attorney.
`
`If needed, find contact information for the supervisor of the office or unit listed in the
`signature block.
`
`

`

`Print: Tue Jan 10 2023
`
`90249660
`
`(4) STANDARD CHARACTER MARK
`
`Mark Punctuated
`ORYZA SYNERGIZER
`Translation
`Goods/Services
`
`•
`
`IC 005. US 005 006 018 044 046 051 052.G & S: Dietary and nutritional supplements containing
`proprietary hydrolyzed functional nutrients from select fractions and strains of rice. FIRST USE:
`20160101. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20160501
`
`Mark Drawing Code
`(4) STANDARD CHARACTER MARK
`Design Code
`Serial Number
`90249660
`Filing Date
`20201012
`Current Filing Basis
`1A
`Original Filing Basis
`1A
`Publication for Opposition Date
`20210413
`Registration Number
`6403169
`Date Registered
`20210629
`Owner
`(REGISTRANT) Bhrum LLC LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY CALIFORNIA 4300 82nd St Suite K
`Sacramento CALIFORNIA 95826
`Priority Date
`Disclaimer Statement
`NO CLAIM IS MADE TO THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO USE "ORYZA" APART FROM THE MARK AS
`SHOWN
`Description of Mark
`Type of Mark
`
`

`

`TRADEMARK
`Register
`PRINCIPAL
`Live Dead Indicator
`LIVE
`Attorney of Record
`Scott Warren
`
`

`

` & Nollogged in Talk Contributions Create account Lee in
`
`Article
`Talk
`Read
`Ecit
`Viewhistory | Searen Wikipedia
`Q
` ‘TheFreeEncyelopedi
`WIKIPEDIA
`Oryza
`ras
`Recyeiopecss
`From Wikipodia, the froc encyclapedia
`Main page
`Oryzais a genus of plants in the grass family."ll4Ir includes the majorfood crop rice (species Oryzasativa and Oryza glaberrima). Members ofthe genusgrow astall, wetland grasses,growingto 1-2 metres (3-7 ft) tall; the gentsincludes both annual
`Contents
`andperennial species"!
`Current events
`ircilsle
`Oryza Is situated In tribe Oryzeae, which Is characterized morphologically byIts single-floweredspikelets whose glumes are almost completely suppressed.In Oryza,two sterlle lemmasimulate glumes.The tribe Oryzeae Is In suofamily Ehrhartoldeze,(5I a
`‘About Wikipedia
`groupof Poaceaetribes with certain featuresof internalIcaf anatomy in common.The most distinctive leaf characteristicsof this subfamily are the armcells and fusoid cells found in their leaves|7ven"alion needea)
`Donate
`Eortact Us)
`Onespecies, Asian rice (0. sativa), provides 20%ofglobal grain and is a food cropof major global importance. The speciesaredivided into two subgroupswithin the genus.
`Contents [hide]
`Contribute
`1 Species
`Help
`
`
`
`Plantae
`Kingdom:
`2 Seealso
`Community portal
`3 References
`Uploadfile a
`Tracheophytes
`Clade:
`Revert caitaes,
`Angicsperms
`Clade:
`
`Monocots
`Clade:
`Tools
`Species [cdi]
`Whatlirks here
`
`
`Realeseses Inside the genus Oryza, species can vedivided by their genomes types. They include the diploic (2n = 24) AAofcultivated rice and their realives, BB, CC, EE, FF and GG aswell as the tetraploid (4n = 48) BCC, CCDD, HHJJ, HHKKand KKLL. Species|Clade: Commelinids
`ofthe same genometypecrosseasily, while hybridizing different types requires techniques like embryo rescue*1
`Scape
`Order:
`Poales
`
`Over 300 nameshave been proposedfor species, subspecies, and otherinfraspecific taxa within the genus. Published sources disagree as to how manyofthese should be recognized asdistinct species. Thefollawing follows the World Checkist
`Recmanentinc
`Family:
`Poaceae
`roe
`maintained by Kew Garcenin London?!
`Subfamily:
`Otyzoideae
`Cite this page
`F
`Wicidataitem
`+ Oryza australiensis (EE) —Australia
`Tribe:
`Oryzeae
`
`rint/axoo:
`
`En * Oryza parthil (NA)—tropical Africa Subtribe: Oryzinae
`
`
`+ Oryza brachyanthe (FF) — tropicalAfrica
`Genus
`Oryza
`Download 2s POF
`+ Oryza coarctate (KKLL) — India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Myenmar
`Printable version
`.
`« Oryza elchinger! (CC)—tropicalAfrica, Sri LankaTypespecies
`Inphecpoperts
`Oryza sativa
`+ Oryza glaberrima(AA) —African rice - tropical Africa
`ences, Commons
`* Oryza granaigiumis (CCDD)— Brazil, Venezuela, Fr Guiana, Colombia, Peru, Bolivia
`uw
`
`cece, * Oryza latifolia (CCDD)- Latin America + WestIndiesfrom Sinaloa + Cuba to Argentina—Synonyms@)
`Languages
`+ Oryza iongiglumis (HHJJ) — New Guinea
`a
`« Pagia Mort’
`duyall
`+ Oryza longistaminata (AA) — Madagascar,tropical + southern Africa
`+ Porteresia Tateoka
`Deutsch
`+ Oryza meyeriana (GG) — China, Indian Subcontinent, SoutheastAsia
`« Indloryza AN Henry & 6 Roy
`
`cite * Oryza minuta (BBCC)—Himalayas, SoutheastAsia, New Guinea,NorthernTerritory ofAustraia
`ae
`« Oryza nsocaledonica (GG) — New Caledonia
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`+ Oryza officinalis (CC) — China, Indian Subcontinent, SoutheastAsia, New Guinea, Australia
`+ Oryza punctata (BB) — Madagascar, tropical + southemAfrica
`+ Oryza ridley’ (HHJJ} ~ Southeast Asia, New Guinea
`* Oryza ruflpogon (AAj — brownbeardorred rice — Cina,Indian Subcontinent. SoutheastAsia, New Guinea,Australia
`+ Oryzasativa (AA) —Asian rice — China,Indian Subcontinent, Japan, SoutheastAsia; naturalized many places
`+ Oryza schlechterl (HHKK) — New Guinea
`Formerly included | eci|
`Manyspecies now regardedasbetter suited to other generat”!
`+ Echinochloa
`* Leersia
`+ Meltebrunia
`« Potamophila
`+ Prosphytochloa
`+ Rhynchoryza
`
`See also [edi:)
`© Specialized metabolism in Oryza
`
`ltaliano
`Pyccxuit
`Tiérg Vet
`
`x [
`
`ma 44 mere# Editlings
`
`8.
`
`References eat)
`1.4 lectotype designated by Du'stermaat, Blumea 32. 174 (1087)
`2,*# Pe "World Checklist of Selected Plant Families: Royal Botanic
`Gardens, Kew". aops.keworg. Retrieved 2016-09-14
`34 innaeus, Carl von 1753, SpeciesPlantarum1 333 in Lalin
`4, "Tropicos | Name — Oryza L." 2 wwwtropicos.org. Retrieved
`(2016-09-14.
`5.4 "Oryzain Flora of China @ ofloras org", wwnweftoras.org. Retrieved
`2016-09-14.
`6. * Kellogg, E.A. (30 January2008), "The Evoluticnary History of
`Ehrhartoideae, Oryzeze, and Oryza"L. Rice. 2 1-14.
`doi:40.1007/s12284-009-9022-2 8.
`7. * Heywood, V.H. =lowering Plants of the World 1993 Oxford University
`Press
`
`4 Stein, Joshua C.; Yu, Yeisoo; Copetti, Dario. Zwick, Derrick J ; Zhang,
`Li; Zhang, Chengjun Crougule, Kapeel; Gao, Dongying Iwata, Aiko;
`Goicoechea, Jose Luis; Wei, Sharon; Warg, Jun; Liao, Yi; Wang
`Muhua;Jacquemin, Julie; Becker, Claude; Kudra, Dave; Zhang
`Jianwei; Londono, Carlos E M.; Sona, Xiena: Lee, Seunchee; Sancrez,
`Paul; Zuccolo, Andrea;Ammiraiu, Jetty S. S.; Talag, Jayson; Danowitz,
`‘Ann; Rivera, Luis F; Gschwend,Andrea R.: Neutsos, Christos; Wu
`Cheng-cheh;Kao, Shu-min; Zeng, Jhih-wun; Wei, Fujin; Zhao, Giang
`Feng, Qi, El Baidoun, Moaine; Carpentier, Marie-Christine; Lasserre
`Eric, Cooke, Richard; Rosa Farias, Daniel da; da Maia, Luciano Carlos;
`dos Santos, RailsonS., Nyberg, Kevin G., McNally, Kenneth L.,
`Mauleon, Rati, Alexandioy, Nickola, Schriulz, Jeremy,
`
`Flowers, Dave,
`Fan, Chuanzhu; Weigel, Detlef; Jena, <shirod «.; Wicker, Thames;
`Chen, Mirgsheng; Han, Bin; Henry, Robert; Hsing, Yue-ie C.; Kurata,
`Nori; de Cliveire, Antonio Costa; Panaud, Olivier; Jackson, ScottA;
`Mechaco,CarlosA; Sanderson, MichaelJ.; Long, Manyven; Wara,
`Doreen. Wing, RodA.
`(22 January 2618). “Genomes of 13 domesticated
`
`and wild rice relatives highlignt genetic conservation, turnover anc
`innovation across the genus Oryza’, Nature Genetes.
`60(2): 285—
`296, doi:10, 1038!e41588 018 0040 9g, PMID 203586512.
`
`GRIN: 8617 17 + Naturalist’ 6138? (2+ IPNI 18639-1127 +
`
`Wikidata’ Q690633 - Wikispecies: Oryza«APD: 19326917»APNI 5734517» Gol: SV7YWi4 - Fal » FPPO: 1ORYGd7 - FloraRase: 21043 1 - FOAO?: Oryzai? « FoG 12331317 » GRIF 2703466 12+GrassRase’ gendcdd1108188Ut
`
`Taxonidentifiers
`
`RNG: 1235836 @«ITIS: 41975 2 + NCBI: 4527 + NZOR: cOff30a8-c47e-42be-Bcc7-b33eade?1be3 H+ Open Tree of Life 1357647 + PLANTS. ORYZA POWO: um:lsid:ipni.org:names:18639-1 4 - Tropicos: 40034327 - uBio: 5866210 e-WFO: wo-4000927352
`
`
`9, *Ammi'Reju, Jetty, Song, Xiang; Luo, Meizhong; Sisneros, Nicholas;
`Angelova, Angelina; Kuda, David; Kim Hyeran; Yu, Yeisoo,
`Goicoeches, Jose; Lorieux, Matias; Kurata, Nori; Brar, Darshan;
`Jackson, Scatt; Wing, Rod (1 December 2010). "The Oryza BAC
`resource: Agenus-wide and genome scale tool for exploring rice
`genomeevolution andleveraging useful aenetic diversity from wild
`relatives'c’. Breeding Science 60 (5) 536-543
`dci:10.1270/jsbbs.60.5363.
`
`

`

`‘Authority control: National libraries#|Germany (2 + israel(2+Inited Statesi?
`
`& This Poaceaearticleisa stub. Youcanhelp Wikipedia byexpandingit.
`Categories: Oryza | Poaceae genera | Taxa named by Carl Linnaeus | Poaceae stubs
`
`This page was last edited ar 6April 2022, at21:49 (UTC),
`Textis avalable under the Creative GumrmonsAltributioa-ShareAlike License 3.0, additional terms may apply. By using this sile, you agree to Ihe Terms cfUse and Privacy Pclicy. Wikipedia® is @ registered tademuark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-proil o1gerization
`
`Privacypolicy AboutWikivedie Disclaimers Contact Wkipedia Mo