Offc Action Outgoing

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

 

 

 

OFFICE ACTION

 

TO AVOID ABANDONMENT, WE MUST RECEIVE A PROPER RESPONSE TO THIS OFFICE ACTION WITHIN 6 MONTHS OF OUR MAILING OR E-MAILING DATE. 

 

 

Serial Number  76/129625

 

The examining attorney has removed this application from suspension and has determined the following.  The examining attorney accepts the applicant’s amendments with regard to the translation, the declaration and the drawing.  However, the examining attorney continues the basis refusal.

 

LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION UNDER 2(d)

 

The examining attorney refuses registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. Section 1052(d), because the applicant's mark, when used on or in connection with the identified goods, so resembles the mark in U.S. Registration No. 2646125 as to be likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive.  TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the enclosed registration.

 

The examining attorney must analyze each case in two steps to determine whether there is a likelihood of confusion.  First, the examining attorney must look at the marks themselves for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression.  In re E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1973).  Second, the examining attorney must compare the goods or services to determine if they are related or if the activities surrounding their marketing are such that confusion as to origin is likely.  In re August Storck KG, 218 USPQ 823 (TTAB 1983); In re International Telephone and Telegraph Corp., 197 USPQ 910 (TTAB 1978); Guardian Products Co., v. Scott Paper Co., 200 USPQ 738 (TTAB 1978).

 

The examining attorney must compare the marks for similarities in sound, appearance, meaning or connotation.  In re DuPont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1973).  Similarity in any one of these elements is sufficient to find a likelihood of confusion.  In re Mack, 197 USPQ 755 (TTAB 1977).

 

Applicant seeks to register the  mark “BALENO” and design of a whale.  Registration No. 2646125 is for the word mark “BALENO” and design of a whale.  Applicant’s mark is similar with regard to appearance, sound, meaning and commercial impression to the mark of cited registrant.  Applicant’s mark uses the same primary term BALENO and the nearly identical design of a whale.  The marks convey the same overall commercial impression.  See:  In re Akzona Inc., 94 (TTAB 1983); In re Wm. E. Wright Co., 185 USPQ 445 (TTAB 1975).  Based on the marks alone, there is a likelihood of confusion.

 

After examining the marks, the examining attorney applies the second step of the test, whether there is a likelihood of confusion on the basis of the goods identified in the application and registration.  If the cited registration describes the goods broadly and there are no limitations as to their nature, type, channels of trade or classes of purchasers, it is presumed that the registration encompasses all goods of the type described, that they move in all normal channels of trade, and that they are available to all potential customers.  In re Elbaum, 211 USPQ 639 (TTAB 1981).

 

Applicant’s goods are described as “luggage.”  Registrant’s goods are “clothing, namely, jackets, jumpers, dresses, skirts, pants, trousers, shirts, t-shirts, pullovers, sweaters and undergarments, footwear and shoes.”  The goods of applicant are closely related to the goods of registrant.  The applicant’s and registrant’s goods are likely to be encountered by the same purchasers in the same channel of trade.  Given the confusing similarity of the marks, consumers familiar with the registrant’s goods are likely to believe that applicant’s goods come from the same source.

 

The fact that the goods of the parties differ is not controlling in determining likelihood of confusion.  The issue is not likelihood of confusion between particular goods, but likelihood of confusion as to the source of those goods.  See In re Rexel Inc., 223 USPQ 830, 831, (TTAB 1984), and cases cited therein; TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).  Applicant’s and registrant’s goods as described in the identifications noted above could be encountered by the same purchasers and if such a situation occurred, it is likely that the purchaser would be confused as to the source of the goods.  The examining attorney must resolve any doubt regarding a likelihood of confusion in favor of the prior registrant.  In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 6 USPQ2d 1025 (Fed. Cir., 1988).

 

Based on the above reasons, a likelihood of confusion must be found to exist.  Although the examining attorney has refused registration, the applicant may respond to the refusal to register by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.  If the applicant chooses to respond to the refusal to register, the applicant must also respond to the following informality.

 

REQUIREMENTS FOR INTENT TO USE BASIS

 

To base the application on a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce, the applicant must submit the following statement:

 

The 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 since the filing date of the application.

 

This statement must be verified, i.e., supported either by an affidavit or by a declaration under 37 C.F.R. §§2.20 and 2.33.  Trademark Act Section 1(b), 15 U.S.C. §1051(b);  37 C.F.R. §2.34(a)(2)(i); TMEP §806.01(b).  The following is a sample declaration:

 

The undersigned, being hereby warned that willful false statements and the like so made are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under 18 U.S.C. 1001, and that such willful false statements may jeopardize the validity of the application or any resulting registration, declares that the applicant 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 application filing date. 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(2)(i), (a)(3)(i) and (a)(4)(ii); he/she is properly authorized to execute this application on behalf of the applicant; he/she believes the applicant to be the owner of the trademark/service mark sought to be registered, or, if the application is being filed under 15 U.S.C. 1051(b), 1126(d) or 1126(e), he/she believes applicant to be entitled to use such mark in commerce; to the best of his/her knowledge and belief no other person, firm, corporation, or association has the right to use the mark in commerce, either in the identical form thereof or in such near resemblance thereto as to be likely, when used on or in connection with the goods/services of such other person, to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive; and that all statements made of his/her own knowledge are true and all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true.

 

 

_____________________________

                (Signature)

 

_____________________________

(Print or Type Name and Position)

 

_____________________________

                    (Date)

 

 

 

 

/Caroline E. Wood/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 110

Formal responses only: ecom110@uspto.gov

(703) 308-9110 x197

 

 

How to respond to this Office Action:

 

To respond formally using the Office’s Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), visit http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/index.html and follow the instructions.

 

To respond formally via E-mail, visit http://www.gov.uspto.report/web/trademarks/tmelecresp.htm and follow the instructions.

 

To respond formally via regular mail, your response should be sent to the mailing Return Address listed above and include the serial number, law office and examining attorney’s name on the upper right corner of each page of your response.

 

To check the status of your application at any time, visit the Office’s Trademark Applications and Registrations Retrieval (TARR) system at http://tarr.gov.uspto.report/

 

For general and other useful information about trademarks, you are encouraged to visit the Office’s web site at http://www.gov.uspto.report/main/trademarks.htm

 

FOR INQUIRIES OR QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS OFFICE ACTION, PLEASE CONTACT THE ASSIGNED EXAMINING ATTORNEY.