UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
SERIAL NO: 76/155181
APPLICANT: LEVI STRAUSS & CO.
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: |
RETURN ADDRESS: Commissioner for Trademarks P.O. Box 1451 Alexandria, VA 22313-1451
|
MARK: MOBILE
|
|
CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO: IP20506A
CORRESPONDENT EMAIL ADDRESS: |
Please provide in all correspondence:
1. Filing date, serial number, mark and applicant's name. 2. Date of this Office Action. 3. Examining Attorney's name and Law Office number. 4. Your telephone number and e-mail address.
|
MAILING/E-MAILING DATE INFORMATION: If the mailing or e-mailing date of this Office action does not appear above, this information can be obtained by visiting the USPTO website at http://tarr.gov.uspto.report/, inserting the application serial number, and viewing the prosecution history for the mailing date of the most recently issued Office communication.
Serial Number 76/155181
Since the prior filed application is now registered, this file is removed from suspension for the following action. Based on the differences in the overall marks and goods, it is believed that the registration of the term MOBILS for footwear will not create likelihood of confusion between this mark and the mark of the applicant.
However, the refusal to register under the provisions of Section 2(d) based on Registration no. 2,682,364 is maintained, on grounds of similarity of the marks and the goods.
The arguments and supporting case law in prior Office actions are incorporated in their entirety into this letter.
The marks are highly similar in wording: MOBILE UNIFORM MOBILE. Applicant’s addition of the descriptive , disclaimed term “uniform” does not substantially alter the similar meanings of the marks.
Likelihood of confusion is determined on the basis of the goods or services as they are identified in the application and the registration. 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). Since the identification of the applicant’s goods and/or services is very broad, it is presumed that the application encompasses all goods and/or services 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. TMEP §1207.01(a)(iii).
Therefore, the fact that the registrant uses the mark for uniforms composed of various clothing items does not lessen similarity of the goods. Each party is using a similar mark on identical clothing items, such as pant, shirts and jackets.
For these reasons likelihood of confusion as to source would arise.
Henry S. Zak
/Henry S. Zak/
Examining Attorney
Law Office 117
(571) 272-9354
HOW TO RESPOND TO THIS OFFICE ACTION:
STATUS OF APPLICATION: To check the status of your application, visit the Office’s Trademark Applications and Registrations Retrieval (TARR) system at http://tarr.uspto.gov.
VIEW APPLICATION DOCUMENTS ONLINE: Documents in the electronic file for pending applications can be viewed and downloaded online at http://portal.gov.uspto.report/external/portal/tow.
GENERAL TRADEMARK INFORMATION: For general information about trademarks, please visit the Office’s website at http://www.gov.uspto.report/main/trademarks.htm
FOR INQUIRIES OR QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS OFFICE ACTION, PLEASE CONTACT THE ASSIGNED EXAMINING ATTORNEY SPECIFIED ABOVE.