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  76/284281

 

            This letter responds to the applicant's communication filed on March 25, 2002.

 

 

I.  AMENDMENT TO IDENTIFICATION ACCEPTED:

 

            The applicant’s amendment to the identification of goods is accepted and will be entered into the record.  However, the applicant is advised of the following FINAL refusal.

 

 

II.  THE MARK IS LIKELY TO CAUSE CONFUSION WITH THE

MARK IN REGISTRATION NO.  1,480,928:

 

Registration was refused under Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d), because the mark for which registration is sought so resembles the mark shown in U.S. Registration No. 1,480,928 as to be likely, when used with the identified goods/services, to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive.

 

The examining attorney has considered the applicant’s arguments carefully but has found them unpersuasive.  For the reasons below, the refusal under Section 2(d) is maintained and made FINAL.

           

A.        Legal Standard:

 

Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act bars registration where a mark so resembles a registered mark, that it is likely, when applied to the goods/services, to cause confusion, or to cause mistake or to deceive. TMEP §1207.01.  The Court in In re E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (C.C.P.A. 1973), listed the principal factors to consider in determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion.  Among these factors are the similarity of the marks as to appearance, sound, meaning and commercial impression and the similarity of the goods/services.  The overriding concern is to prevent buyer confusion as to the source of the goods/services.  Miss Universe, Inc. v. Miss Teen U.S.A., Inc., 209 USPQ 698 (N.D. Ga. 1980).  Therefore, any doubt as to the existence of a likelihood of confusion must be resolved in favor of the registrant.  Lone Star Mfg. Co. v. Bill Beasley, Inc., 498 F.2d 906, 182 USPQ 368 (C.C.P.A. 1974). 

 

The test under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act is whether there is a likelihood of confusion. It is unnecessary to show actual confusion in establishing likelihood of confusion.  See Weiss Associates Inc. v. HRL Associates Inc., 902 F.2d 1546, 1549, 14 USPQ2d 1840, 1842-43 (Fed. Cir. 1990), and cases cited therein.  TMEP §1207.01(d)(ii). 

 

B.         The Registered Mark Is Highly Similar In Appearance To Applicant’s Mark:

 

Generally, when the applicant’s mark is compared to a registered mark, “the points of similarity are of greater importance than the points of difference.”  Esso Standard Oil Co. v. Sun Oil Co., 229 F.2d 37, 108 USPQ 161 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 351 U.S. 973, 109 USPQ 517 (1956).  TMEP §1207.01(b).  Further, although it is not proper to dissect a mark, if one feature of a mark is more significant than another feature, it is proper to give greater force and effect to that dominant feature for purposes of determining likelihood of confusion.  Giant Food, Inc. v. Nation's Foodservice, Inc., 710 F.2d 1565, 218 USPQ 390 (Fed. Cir. 1983). 

 

            Moreover, the examining attorney must look at the marks in their entireties under Section 2(d).  Nevertheless, one feature of a mark may be recognized as more significant in creating a commercial impression.  Greater weight is given to that dominant feature in determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion.  In re National Data Corp., 224 USPQ 749 (Fed. Cir. 1985); Tektronix, Inc. v. Daktronics, Inc., 534 F.2d 915, 189 USPQ 693 (CCPA 1976). In re J.M. Originals Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1393 (TTAB 1988).

 

            In this case, the applicant has applied to register the mark “FUZZY’S” for pizza, pasta and sandwiches for consumption on or off the premises in International Class 30.  The registered mark is “FUZZY’S (Stylized)” also for use on restaurant services.  The marks are nearly identical in appearance except for the stylization on the registrant’s mark.  The applicant has not argued otherwise.

 

The applicant’s argument that the registrant and the applicant are located in different geographic locations within the United States is not persuasive.  Clearly, the applicant is seeking a Federal Registration that may be used throughout the country, not just in Texas. 

C.        The Applicant’s Goods and Are Closely Related To Registrant’s Services:

 

If the marks of the respective parties are identical or highly similar, the examining attorney must consider the commercial relationship between the goods or services of the respective parties carefully to determine whether there is a likelihood of confusion.  In re Concordia International Forwarding Corp., 222 USPQ 355 (TTAB 1983).  TMEP §1207.01(a). 

 

The goods/services of the parties need not be identical or directly competitive to find a likelihood of confusion.  They need only be related in some manner, or the conditions surrounding their marketing be such, that they could be encountered by the same purchasers under circumstances that could give rise to the mistaken belief that the goods/services come from a common source.  In re Martin’s Famous Pastry Shoppe, Inc., 748 F.2d 1565, 223 USPQ 1289 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Corning Glass Works, 229 USPQ 65 (TTAB 1985); In re Rexel Inc., 223 USPQ 830 (TTAB 1984); Guardian Products Co., Inc. v. Scott Paper Co., 200 USPQ 738 (TTAB 1978); In re International Telephone & Telegraph Corp., 197 USPQ 910 (TTAB 1978).  TMEP §1207.01(a)(i). 

 

            In this case, the applicant’s goods are closely related to the registrant’s services since restaurant owners also seek to register their marks on various goods including pizza.  As a matter of fact, applicant also owns prior pending Application No. 76/284338, “FUZZY’S”, for use on restaurant services.  Moreover, restaurants such as Domino’s Pizza and Little Caesar’s also register their marks for restaurants, as well as goods, such as pizza.  See attached third-party registrations.  Therefore, the applicant’s goods are closely related to the registrant’s restaurant services. 

 

D.            Conclusion:

 

            Since the applicant’s goods are closely related to the registrant’s services and since the marks are nearly identical in appearance, there would be likelihood of confusion between the marks.  Therefore, “doubt as to likelihood of confusion must be resolved in favor of registrant who is a prior user.”  In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 6 USPQ2d 1025 (Fed. Cir., 1988).

 

E.            Appropriate Response:

 

Please note that the only appropriate responses to a final action are (1) compliance with the outstanding requirements, if feasible, (2) filing of an appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, or (3) filing of a petition to the Director if permitted by 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b). 37 C.F.R. §2.64(a); TMEP §715.01.  Regarding petitions to the Director, see 37 C.F.R. §2.146 and TMEP Chapter 1700.  If the applicant fails to respond within six months of the mailing date of this refusal, this Office will declare the application abandoned.  37 C.F.R. §2.65(a). 

 

                                                                       

                                                                   ______________________________

Robert L. Lorenzo

Trademark Attorney

Law Office 111

(703) 308-9111 x 117

Robert.Lorenzo@uspto.gov

 

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.