THE TASTE OF PARADISE

To: Anastasia Confections, Inc. ([email protected])

Subject: U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 87588050 - ANASTASIA TASTE OF PARADISE - 10249-0030

Sent: May 18, 2020 05:04:44 PM

Sent As: [email protected]

Attachments: Attachment - 1Attachment - 2Attachment - 3Attachment - 4Attachment - 5Attachment - 6Attachment - 7Attachment - 8Attachment - 9Attachment - 10

 United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application

 U.S. Application Serial No.87588050 Mark:  ANASTASIA TASTE OFPARADISE 

Correspondence Address: James David JohnsonJOHNSON & MARTIN PA500 WEST CYPRESS CREEKROAD SUITE 430FORT LAUDERDALE FL 33309 

Applicant:  AnastasiaConfections, Inc. 

Reference/Docket No.10249-0030 Correspondence Email Address:  [email protected]

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).  Alink to the appropriate TEAS response form and/or to ESTTA for an appeal appears at the end of this Office action.  Issue date:  May 18, 2020 INTRODUCTION This Office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on April 1, 2020. In a previous Office action dated October 1, 2020, the trademark examining attorney maintained a  refusal of registration of the applied-for markbased on Trademark Act Section 2(d) for a likelihood of confusion with a registered mark was that previously made final in an Office action

dated January 4, 2019. In addition, applicant was required to provide a new amendment to the identification of goods. Based on applicant’s response, the trademark examining attorney notes that the identification of goods requirement has been satisfied. SeeTMEP §§713.02, 714.04.  The trademark examining attorney has thoroughly reviewed applicant’s response and finds the arguments presented in response to the Section2(d) Refusal unpersuasive. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth below, the Section 2(d) Refusal is maintained and made FINAL with respectto U.S. Registration No. 1370368.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b); TMEP §714.04.    SUMMARY OF ISSUES: 

Section 2(d) Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion

 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. 1370368.  TrademarkAct Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the previously attached registration. In the present case, applicant seeks to register the mark ANASTASIA TASTE OF PARADISE with a design for “Coconut and chocolateconfections; cookies; chocolates; chocolate snacks; baked goods, namely, cookies, chocolate-based bakery goods, and coconut-based bakerygoods” in Class 30. The mark in Registration No. 1370368 is THE TASTE OF PARADISE in standard characters for “Processed macadamia nuts” in Class 29. 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 beconfused, mistaken, or deceived as to the commercial source of the goods the parties.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).  Likelihood of confusion isdetermined 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 USPQ563, 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 similarweight 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) thesimilarities between the compared marks and (2) the relatedness of the compared goods.  See In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d at 1322, 123USPQ2d 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 mandatedby [Section] 2(d) goes to the cumulative effect of differences in the essential characteristics of the goods and differences in the marks.”); TMEP§1207.01.  Similarity of the Marks Marks are compared in their entireties for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression.  Stone Lion CapitalPartners, LP v. Lion Capital LLP, 746 F.3d 1317, 1321, 110 USPQ2d 1157, 1160 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. VeuveClicquot 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 USPQ2d1742, 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). Here, applicant’s mark is ANASTASIA TASTE OF PARADISE with a design and registrant’s mark is THE TASTE OF PARADISE instandard characters. The wording TASTE OF PARADISE in applicant’s mark is identical in sound and appearance to the wording TASTE OFPARADISE in registrant’s mark. Moreover, this shared wording conveys the same meaning of becoming acquainted with a place of bliss ordelight. See https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/taste; https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/paradise, previously attached. Although marks are compared in their entireties, one feature of a mark may be more significant or dominant in creating a commercialimpression.  See In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1305, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1050 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing In re Dixie Rests., 105 F.3d1405, 1407, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533-34 (Fed. Cir. 1997)); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii).  Greater weight is often given to this dominant feature

when determining whether marks are confusingly similar.  See In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d at 1305, 128 USPQ2d at 1050 (citing In reDixie Rests., 105 F.3d at 1407, 41 USPQ2d at 1533-34). The addition of design elements in the applied-for mark does not obviate the similarities between the marks. When evaluating a composite markconsisting of words and a design, the word portion is normally accorded greater weight because it is likely to make a greater impression uponpurchasers, be remembered by them, and be used by them to refer to or request the goods. In re Aquitaine Wine USA, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1181,1184 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); TMEP §1207.01(c)(ii).  Thus,although marks must be compared in their entireties, the word portion is often considered the dominant feature and is accorded greater weight indetermining 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)).Here, consumers will call for applicant’s goods using the literal element of the mark, ANASTASIA TASTE OF PARADISE. Moreover, the addition of the term ANASTASIA in the applied-for mark does not obviate the similarities between the marks. Adding a term to aregistered mark generally does not obviate the similarity between the compared marks, as in the present case, nor does it overcome a likelihoodof confusion under Section 2(d).  See Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Jos. E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., 526 F.2d 556, 557, 188 USPQ 105, 106 (C.C.P.A.1975) (finding BENGAL and BENGAL LANCER and design confusingly similar); In re Toshiba Med. Sys. Corp., 91 USPQ2d 1266, 1269(TTAB 2009) (finding TITAN and VANTAGE TITAN confusingly similar); In re El Torito Rests., Inc., 9 USPQ2d 2002, 2004 (TTAB 1988)(finding MACHO and MACHO COMBOS confusingly similar); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iii).  In the present case, the marks are identical in part,wherein the wording TASTE OF PARADISE appears to consumers as applicant’s slogan. Further, the addition of the term THE in the registered mark does not obviate the similarities between the marks. When comparing similar marks,the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board has found that inclusion of the term “the” at the beginning of one of the marks will generally not affect orotherwise diminish the overall similarity between the marks.  See In re Thor Tech Inc., 90 USPQ2d 1634, 1635 (TTAB 2009) (finding WAVEand THE WAVE “virtually identical” marks; “[t]he addition of the word ‘The’ at the beginning of the registered mark does not have anytrademark significance.”); In re Narwood Prods. Inc., 223 USPQ 1034, 1034 (TTAB 1984) (finding THE MUSIC MAKERS and MUSIC-MAKERS “virtually identical” marks; the inclusion of the definite article “the” is “insignificant in determining likelihood of confusion”). Applicant’s Arguments in the Response Dated April 1, 2020 Applicant asserts that the wording ANASTASIA in the applied-for mark is a house mark which obviates any likelihood of confusion between themarks. However, adding a house mark to an otherwise confusingly similar mark will not obviate a likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d). See In re Fiesta Palms LLC, 85 USPQ2d 1360, 1366-67 (TTAB 2007) (finding CLUB PALMS MVP and MVP confusingly similar); In reChristian Dior, S.A., 225 USPQ 533, 534 (TTAB 1985) (finding LE CACHET DE DIOR and CACHET confusingly similar); TMEP§1207.01(b)(iii).  Here, because the applied-for mark consists of a combination of a house mark and a slogan and the registered mark consists of the same slogan,consumers are particularly likely to attribute the goods sold under these marks to the same source.  See In re Chica, Inc., 84 USPQ2d 1845,1848-49 (TTAB 2007). Accordingly, in the present case, the marks are confusingly similar. Applicant also argues that the house mark ANASTASIA is “well known and famous in the candy industry for its Coconut Patties,” and that as aresult “consumers will be familiar and associate ANASTASIA with the products used in connection with the mark.” However,   like the other duPont factors, the fame of a mark may be considered only if there is relevant evidence of record. See TMEP §1207.01. Thus, a party who assertsthat its mark is famous must submit evidence clearly establishing that its mark is viewed by relevant purchasers as a famous mark. See, e.g., In reHard Rock Cafe Licensing Corp. v. Elsea, 48 USPQ2d 1400, 1409 (TTAB 1998). The fame of a mark may be shown by evidence of, inter alia,the quantity of sales of products bearing the mark, the amount of advertising expenditures relating to the mark, and the length of time suchindications of commercial awareness have been evident. See Bose, 293 F.3d at 1371, 63 USPQ2d at 1305-06. Here, applicant has merely submitted its own website as evidence of the fame of the mark; accordingly, in the present case, the “fame of themark” factor is treated as neutral, as is typical when no evidence as to fame has been provided.  See id.; see also In re Davey Prods. Pty Ltd., 92USPQ2d 1198, 1204 (TTAB 2009) (noting that the absence of evidence as to the fame of the registered mark “is not particularly significant inthe context of an ex parte proceeding”). Because a significant portion of applicant’s mark is essentially identical in sound, appearance, and meaning to the entirety of the registrant’smark, consumers are likely to believe the marks identify the same source of goods. Therefore, the marks are confusingly similar. Relatedness of the Goods 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 thatthey could give rise to the mistaken belief that [the goods] emanate from the same source.”   Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668F.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). Here, applicant’s chocolates and bakery goods are related to registrant’s processed macadamia nuts. The attached Internet evidence, consisting of a number of third party websites, establishes that the same entity commonly manufactures,produces, or provides the relevant goods and markets these goods under the same mark. See 

Hamakua Macadamia Nut Company, at https://hawnnut.com/; https://hawnnut.com/product-category/chocolates-confections/, previouslyattached; https://hawnnut.com/product-category/baked-morsels/; Royal Hawaiian Orchards, at https://royalhawaiianorchards.com/pages/shop, previously attached;Island Princess, at https://www.islandprincesshawaii.com/Island-Princess-100-Hawaiian-Macadamia-Nuts-s/105.htm, previously attached;Big Island Candies, at https://www.bigislandcandies.com/local-favorites.html; https://www.bigislandcandies.com/chocolates.html;https://www.bigislandcandies.com/signature-shortbreads.html; https://www.bigislandcandies.com/baked-treats.html, previously attached;Dole Plantation, at https://www.doleplantation.com/product-category/food/fruitsnuts/; https://www.doleplantation.com/product/pineapple-flavored-white-chocolate-coated-macadamia-nuts/; https://www.doleplantation.com/product-category/food/candiescookiessnacks/ ,previously attached;Albanese Candy, at https://www.albanesecandy.com/all-nuts/macadamias-roasted-salted/; https://www.albanesecandy.com/dark-chocolate/dark-chocolate-macadamia-nuts/; https://www.albanesecandy.com/corporate-gifting/gingerbread-house-gift-box/; Tropical Farms, at https://www.macnutfarm.com/en/5-macadamia-nuts; https://www.macnutfarm.com/en/7-macadamia-nut-chocolates;https://www.macnutfarm.com/en/gift-basket/36-taste-of-the-islands-gift-basket.html, previously attached;Hilo Hattie, at https://www.hilohattie.com/collections/treats/products/hilo-hattie-dry-roasted-salted-macadamia-nuts-10-oz-foil-pouch;https://www.hilohattie.com/collections/treats/products/hh-pink-choccvd-mac8oz;https://www.hilohattie.com/collections/treats/products/hh-chocolate-cvd-pineapple-4oz, previously attached;Hale Kai Lana, at https://www.halekailana.com/macadamia-nuts-s/1831.htm, previously attached;Makua Coffee Company, at https://www.makuacoffee.com/product-category/chocolates-and-kona-cacao/, previously attached;MacFarms, at https://www.macfarms.com/collections/shop;Hawaii’s Local Buzz, at https://www.hawaiislocalbuzz.com/chocolate; https://www.hawaiislocalbuzz.com/shortbread-cookies;https://www.hawaiislocalbuzz.com/Nuts-in-the-Nude-Macadamia-Nuts

 Moreover, registrant also provides these same goods under the same mark. See https://shop.maunaloa.com/Chocolate-Covered-Macadamia-Nuts/c/MaunaLoa@ChocolateCovered, previously attached. Accordingly, when consumers encounter chocolates, baked goods, and macadamia nuts offered under highly similar marks, they are likely to beconfused as to the source of the goods. Applicant’s Arguments in the Response Dated April 1, 2020 Applicant did not offer new arguments concerning the relatedness of the goods, but reiterated prior arguments concerning the “crowded field” ofmarks in the food and restaurant industry that were addressed in the Office action dated January 4, 2019.  In summary, the marks are confusingly similar and the goods are related. Therefore, consumers are likely to be confused as to the source of thegoods. Thus, registration is refused pursuant to Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, the Section 2(d) Refusal is maintained and made FINAL with respect to U.S. Registration No.1370368.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b); TMEP §714.04. RESPONSE GUIDELINES Please call or email the assigned trademark examining attorney with questions about this Office action.  Although an examining attorney cannotprovide legal advice, the examining attorney can provide additional explanation about the refusal 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 inthe application record.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(c), 2.191; TMEP §§304.01-.02, 709.04-.05. 

 How to respond.  Click to file a request for reconsideration of this final Office action that fully resolves all outstanding requirements andrefusals and/or click to file a timely appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) with the required filing fees.  

/Lisa A. Papale/Trademark Examining AttorneyU.S. Patent and Trademark OfficeLaw Office 122(571) [email protected]   

RESPONSE GUIDANCE 

Missing the response deadline to this letter will cause the application to abandon.  A response or notice of appeal must be received bythe USPTO before midnight Eastern Time of the last day of the response period.  TEAS and ESTTA maintenance or unforeseencircumstances could affect an applicant’s ability to timely respond.  

 Responses signed by an unauthorized party are not accepted and can cause the application to abandon.  If applicant does not have anattorney, the response must be signed by the individual applicant, all joint applicants, or someone with legal authority to bind a juristicapplicant.  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.

To: Anastasia Confections, Inc. ([email protected])

Subject: U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 87588050 - ANASTASIA TASTE OF PARADISE - 10249-0030

Sent: May 18, 2020 05:04:48 PM

Sent As: [email protected]

Attachments:

 United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

 USPTO OFFICIAL NOTICE

 Office Action (Official Letter) has issued

on May 18, 2020 forU.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 87588050

 Your trademark application has been reviewed by a trademark examining attorney.  As part of that review, the assigned attorney hasissued an official letter that you must respond to by the specified deadline or your application will be abandoned.  Please follow thesteps below. (1)  Read the official letter. (2)  Direct questions about the contents of the Office action to the assigned attorney below.   /Lisa A. Papale/Trademark Examining AttorneyU.S. Patent and Trademark OfficeLaw Office 122(571) [email protected]  Direct questions about navigating USPTO electronic forms, the USPTO website, the application process, the status of yourapplication, and/or whether there are outstanding deadlines or documents related to your file to the Trademark Assistance Center(TAC). (3)  Respond within 6 months (or earlier, if required in the Office action) from May 18, 2020, using the Trademark ElectronicApplication System (TEAS).  The response must be received by the USPTO before midnight Eastern Time of the last day of theresponse period.  See the Office action for more information about how to respond   

GENERAL GUIDANCE·         Check the status of your application periodically in the Trademark Status & Document Retrieval (TSDR) database to avoid

missing critical deadlines. ·         Update your correspondence email address, if needed, to ensure you receive important USPTO notices about your

application. ·         Beware of misleading notices sent by private companies about your application.  Private companies not associated with

the USPTO use public information available in trademark registrations to mail and email trademark-related offers and notices –most of which require fees.  All official USPTO correspondence will only be emailed from the domain “@uspto.gov.”